Directed by Keith Gordon, Written by Robert B. Weide, Based on a novel by Kurt Vonnegut; Starring Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Kirsten Dunst, Arye Gross.
Bluesy: Any movie adapted from a Vonnegut book is one helluva mission. Vonnegut is everyone’s favorite childhood writer. The film versions of SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE and SLAPSTICK run the gamut from terrific to terrible; MOTHER NIGHT, lies somewhere in between the two. While Keith Gordon gives it a valiant effort, honing a style of stillness, a quiet in the storm sort of irony and attitude from his previous films, THE CHOCOLATE WAR and A MIDNIGHT CLEAR, I thought MOTHER NIGHT’S only real flaw was that it was a bit too detached from its material.
The film opens with Bing Crosby’s rendition of "White Christmas" playing, as we see Nick Nolte’s character of writer-propagandist-spy Howard W. Campbell Jr. delivered to an Israeli prison for war crimes against the state. It’s shot in black and white. It’s a still and peaceful scene, not of a struggling prisoner, but of a beleaguered man in chains marching toward his deserved fate… and here the stillness works. But what I found uncomfortable, was the idea that I was given the theme of the film, right up front, even by Vonnegut himself in the words "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be"; and so it goes. I know within ten minutes that this is a film about a guy who pretends to be a Nazi, initially for a greater good, but who is so convincing in his role, he ends up helping their cause more than anyone. Speaking as someone who hasn’t read the book, I found this a great premise for a film. I very much wanted to love MOTHER NIGHT, just on the basis of what it was about. Because it was well acted (though I still can’t help seeing Sheryl Lee as anyone but Laura Palmer… which was ironic casting in and of itself, for reasons I won’t get into here, for fear of giving away too much of the plot). Because I like the book’s author. Because the direction was solid. Because there were many moments of genuine irony, humor, wit and charm. But I can’t help but be bothered by the fact that this movie was so much premise and so little delivery. I didn’t really wanted to be told SO many times, just what I was to be getting from this film… I just wanted to get it, all on my own.
Trap: Well, you know Vonnegut is not the most cinematic of writers – he’s primarily a humorist, but one whose style is very deadpan and ultimately more literary than visual. As a result, getting the tone right on film is a tricky proposition at best, and although there are a number of missteps here, I think in the end Gordon hits more often than he misses. As for the theme being driven home a little too hard, while I can see your objection, you have to remember that this is a film about a writer, and a writer whose stock-in-trade is propaganda as well. He spends much of the film saying one thing while meaning another to people who turn out to be just as duplicitous as he is to the point where he not only can’t be sure of what the truth is or what his role in world events really is, but he realizes that in the end it really hasn’t made any difference except to destroy everything in his life he ever valued. This is not an easy idea to get across on film, depending as it does on repetition and reiteration, as each brings with it a reevaluation of what we’ve seen before, forcing us to consider that everything we’ve been told up until then has been a lie.
Bluesy: I understand your point, Trap, and while I agree with you, I’m still bothered by the repetition of the theme. I really wanted to come across it in my own good time, rather than have everyone in the film say it for me. Though I did like the quirky cast of characters, and like I said, much of this film was enjoyable… though I found a lot of the film’s ironies in Robert Weide’s screenplay a tad too predictable.
I also think that handling a black comedy such as this is a very delicate balancing act. I think very few true black comedies really work consistently. DR STRANGELOVE, for instance, was so dark, yet had me laughing out loud from start to finish.. but that’s the penultimate classic black comedy for me. THE LOVED ONE was another film that comes to mind to have a strong point of view that didn’t have to be spelled out. In MOTHER NIGHT, I was intrigued, I appreciated the irony, but I still felt rather detached from the whole thing.
Trap: But the book isn’t really laugh-out-loud funny to begin with – it’s more a matter of subtle ironies that gradually build momentum as the story progresses until the ending hits you like a punch in the gut. Again, not the easiest thing to portray on film – if it’s played too broadly it seems strident, but if you downplay it too much you lose the comedy. I’m thinking particularly of the scenes in which Campbell has to deal with the Nazi brass – the film can’t make up its mind whether to depict them as deluded buffoons or as genuinely dangerous fanatics. I think it’s this somewhat tentative air that results in the film being less forceful than it might otherwise have been more than anything else.
Bluesy: Well, the whole point of black comedy is irony, not Charlie Chaplin pratfalls… and while MOTHER NIGHT was full of ironies, I guess I just felt it fell a bit short of its promises.
Bluesy and Trap Rate-a-Flick:
MOTHER NIGHT
Worthwhile 
Intelligent
