This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a "sleeper", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie?
55 Reviews
Enjoy the Movie - Don't Try to Find the Book
mfisher5427 February 2006
If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment.
A nice try
jsiuda18 February 2015
Given the track-record for adaptations of Vonnegut novels, I was pleasantly surprised at how faithful this film is to the original source material (with one glaring and near-fatal exception near the end). It is also handsomely-made and features fine performances from everyone involved, especially Nick Nolte. The problem is that the tone is all wrong. The power of Vonnegut's novel is its black humor, which is completely lacking here; in the novel, Howard W. Campbell's story, despite being rooted in WWII and the Holocaust, is a farce that ultimately brims over with moral outrage; here is it more of a arty tragedy.
Bravo!
DeeDee-1022 April 1999
After viewing this film I tried to put my finger on what I truly appreciated about it and found its RESTRAINT to be what captivated me the most. Nolte, not noted for restraint, was amazing in his role as Campbell. His bewilderment, resignation and acceptance of his situation came through with well-crafted acting. The love scenes were remarkably tender. Nolte's responses to the surprises and twists fit the character perfectly. Watch for Vonnegut's cameo!
Dark but fascinating
timnil20 May 2003
Nick Nolte gives an excellent performance in Kurt Vonnegut's dark tale. Notle plays Howard W. Campbell who was a double agent working in propaganda during World War II. After the war, he lives anonymously until competing factions wish to dig up his past. As with much of Vonnegut's work, this is a meditation on the absurdity of war and those who use propaganda for their own aims. Nolte is fantastic - self assured and confident as the younger Campbell, and then broken and haunted as the older man who is forced to atone for the sins of his past. (7 out of 10)
I was seriously impressed!
ron-19311 November 2000
I'm a rather pedestrian person, with somewhat lowbrow tastes. However, I occasionally try to raise the bar on my cultural awareness. This movie was one of my attempts. I was in awe throughout the entire movie. I liked it so much that I got my own tape so I could see it again. This is a very thoughtful and emotionally striking movie. I saw it as a huge question to the viewer: What is the depth of sacrifice to duty one can accept, can be asked to accept, should accept? As a military member, this is of course an important question to me. This question weighs heavily on the viewer of this movie.
Recommended.
Recommended.
This movie is extremely depressing.
deexsocalygal12 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Expect to feel bummed out after watching this. Nothing good happens in this poor man's life. As a child his parents move to Berlin. He starts to write & he develops into a recognized playwrite. His parents move back to America. He stays in Germany & marries a famous actress. The war breaks out & he is approached by an American General who offers him a job as a spy. He takes it. After the war it becomes a problem for him to remain hidden. Jews & different countries want to find him & make an example out of him for what happened to the jews. They want to punish him. He wanders the world, trying not to be recognized. He finally can't take it anymore & turns himself in. In prison officials tell him to write his life story. They put him in a cell with a typewriter. After writing his memior in prison he uses the typewriter ribbon to hang himself. Expect to feel drained & bummed out at the end.
Wartime Allied undercover operative suffers the consequences of his deception, in the process discovering something about himself and about justice.
Narwhal-115 December 2003
It's so rare to find a literary work adequately translated to the screen that I may have rated this film higher than it deserves, but not by much. As a long-time student of Vonnegut's works, I have no hesitation in recommending the film to his readers, at least to those that love him as I do. The casting is inspired: Nolte is understated in triumph, bewildered in defeat, decisive in judgment. Sheryl Lee is luscious throughout, but her handling of the treacherous Resi and her tragic crescendo almost makes you forget her beauty. Alan Arkin delivers a totally lovable, but equally treacherous, Soviet spy.
Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.
Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.
Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts).
Do not feel you have to read Mother Night to appreciate the film; though, if you haven't read Mother Night, you will probably want to after viewing the film.
Notice the shifts from color to black-and-white and back again, and don't miss the final symbolism of Campbell's noose. Watch, also, for Kurt Vonnegut's cameo near the end of the film.
Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" will never sound the same (I write in mid-December, when the song is getting heavy radio play, and it's driving me nuts).
ambiguous, intriguing adaptation of the Vonnegut novel
Jonny_Numb7 October 2005
American playwright Howard W. Campbell, Jr. (played with a musty obsolescence by Nick Nolte) lives happily in Germany with his actress wife, Helga Noth (Sheryl Lee) before the beginning of World War II. At the peak of his life, Howard is drafted by an American agent (John Goodman) to become a spy on behalf of the Allies; forewarned of the risks the job holds, Howard has everything to lose, but finds the offer irresistible. Following the death of his wife and the end of the war, Campbell camouflages himself with the anonymity of a solitary life in New York City, which muddies his neuroses even further. The central question (indeed, a question that has frustrated many critics) of the movie and Kurt Vonnegut's source novel is, "is Campbell a hero or a traitor?" Director Keith Gordon and screenwriter Robert B. Weide offer us clues, but no answer, and this ambiguitythis NOT knowingis what keeps "Mother Night" fresh and interesting throughout. At the beginning of the film, Nolte portrays Campbell as intelligent and confident; by the end, he's either scared and uncertain, or scared and COMPLETELY certain of his contribution/debt to humanity for the role he played in the war. Gordon applies a certain icy sheen to the images of the film's first half, which complement his portrait of the Nazi bourgeoisie and captures Vonnegut's dramatic side. On the flip side, when Campbell is confined to his lonely New York apartment (which he affectionately calls "purgatory") only to be discovered by a group of Nazis, the humor produced also is purely distinctive of the author, and provides a temporary respite from the dramatic tension that unfolds. The moral (even spiritual) paradox "Mother Night" presents doesn't lend itself to simple resolution, and to a degree, should be left ambiguousthe black-and-white scenes of Campbell staring wearily into space as he is imprisoned in Israel suggest an unspoken contemplation we are not made privy toas Campbell is a character whose inner workings we wind up knowing very little about; the war changes him, coming back to America changes him, and meeting up with the Nazis in New York compels him to prolong the facade of his "act" even further, to the point where he can only stare wearily at an image of himself projected on a wall, spewing anti-Semitic bile. Perhaps that's the best reaction we could hope for.
Best adaptation of a Vonnegut book
carlgt14 February 2001
Before this, the flawed "Slaughterhouse Five" was the best. But this screen adaptation of "Mother Night" is very true to the book and keeps the comedy, mystery, and tragedy intent. Thankfully it wasn't Hollywood-ized or idiotized a la the movie of "Breakfast of Champions." Another good thing about this movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book to follow it (as I think you do for Slaughterhouse Five). That's probably true of Breakfast of Champions also but they did such a bad job of that you're better off just reading the book and not seeing the movie! Nick Nolte did an excellent job in this film.
Very Faithful Adaptation of Novel
jaltman14331 October 2002
Hard to categorize the film - perhaps it's an avant garde spy thriller? Mother Night is a very good Vonnegut novel, and most certainly one of his easiest novels to adapt into a feature length film. The film adaptation is very faithful to the original book. The "indie" approach to how this film was produced is probably more effective than having a big Hollywood studio financing it. These days, I doubt an intelligent novel like Mother Night would ever get the green light from the big Hollywood grindhouses. And normally that is too bad, but not in this case. Mother Night has tight direction and a solid cast. Nick Nolte who seems to be getting better roles as he gets older, still has that "everyman" persona that allows him to take on a wide range of different characters. Sheryl Lee is beautiful and great as always. I always thought she deserved better than she got out of the entertainment industry. I guess making your debut as a dead girl (Twin Peaks)with little air time isn't the choicest of roles, even if the TV show becomes a minor phenomenon. Anyway this film is totally enjoyable and you don't have to read the book to understand the movie. In fact, given today's geopolitical realities, the novel's premise may appear dated, and some younger viewers with little knowledge of history will be utterly confused by the events unfolding (I am talking to you, fellow Americans who are students and scoring the lowest in the industrialized world in geography, history, and lord knows what other subjects!).
A Great film version of a great novel!
whearell30 November 2002
The folk who produced this masterful film have done fine service to a novel that stands as perhaps the best fiction work centering upon human guilt and human responsibility ever published. Nolte takes the role of Howard W. Campbell, Jr., and makes it his own, remaining true to Vonnegut's depiction of a man who has lost ALL (to and) for Love.
No weaknesses in this fine adaptation.
No weaknesses in this fine adaptation.
Palatable but hard to swallow
=G=29 June 2003
"Mother Night" tells the story of a man who is recruited by America to serve as a spy during WWII by communicating cryptic messages while working as a German broadcast radio propagandist. The film had good potential as a serious drama but is steered by director Gordon into a niche genre (eg: dark farce or tragicomedy or dark dramady or whatever) making it difficult to connect with. Personally I enjoyed the film in spite of its capricious excursions into the absurd though I suspect many will find them annoying. A budget conscious and theatrical flick, "Mother Night" should be a good watch for Nolte fans and film buffs who don't mind having to work a little to get their head into a flick. All others should keep expectations low to avoid disappointment.(B-)
Did I miss something?
manuel-pestalozzi7 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots?
A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.
Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.
On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.
So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.
AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS
BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.
While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.
One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.
A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.
Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.
On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.
So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.
AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS
BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.
While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.
One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.
A beautifully rendered movie, a credit to its star
Spectator30 September 2001
Seldom do I see a movie in which the star performs so well you can hardly believe he is an actor, but he comes across as the real guy he is portraying. I believed Nick Nolte was an American spy who seemed to renounce his American citizenship in World War II--when in fact he should have been rewarded for having served America so well after the war was over and he returned to civilian life. I have seen Nick Nolte in other movies, but never have I been so impressed with his depth of characterization as he manifests in this film.
Same plot, but a whole different mood from the novel.
HiPalmetto29 September 2008
I am a huge fan of Vonnegut's work and I'm very fond of this movie, but I wouldn't say that this is a film of the "Mother Night" that I read. When people say that Vonnegut is unfilmable, two things come to my mind. One is that many of his themes are very near the knuckle or even taboo, despite the accusation sometimes used against him that he chooses relatively "easy" targets for his satire. This means less every day that passes as far as filmability is concerned. Directors these days appear to revel in breaking taboos and I have high hopes for the version of "Bluebeard" now in production. Amazing to think that an innocent piece like Vonnegut's "Sirens of Titan" would probably have been the equivalent of "R" rated if filmed when it was published back in the 50s, for its violence, language and sexual and thematic content, though it's a tragedy that nobody's come up yet with a filmable script for it. And in the present economic climate, I also hope some director out there is looking closely at "Jailbird", "Galapagos" and "Hocus Pocus".
The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.
Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.
Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.
It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.
But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.
As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.
The other thing is his narrative style, heaping irony upon irony upon irony but still making it hilariously funny. It seems impossible to objectify, and that appears to be the biggest obstacle to making great films of his great novels, because the little authorial comments that colour our response as readers are just not possible in movies without resorting to too often clumsy techniques like "talkovers". Vonnegut suggested that there was a character missing from filmed versions of his work, himself as author/narrator. To its credit, "Breakfast of Champions" (the movie) tried to keep the comedy and came a bit of a cropper for its pains. As did another turkey made from a Vonnegut novel, "Slapstick" in an even more spectacular way.
Still, there's nothing wrong with a director giving us his subjective interpretation of Vonnegut, and "Mother Night" is an excellent example of how, as another reviewer put it, a good director can add a visual poetry to a source like this. But so much of the humour is lost that though it's the same plot, it's not really from the same novel I read. If it had been, I'd probably have been rolling in the aisles laughing a few times watching it. For a reader of the novel, I think a chuckle even at the end is forgivable. The end of the film, however, is truly poignant, and I think one of the film's successes is that it can genuinely leave you feeling that you've watched someone walk a razor's edge between good and evil, and the jury is still out.
Standing alone and of itself it's well worth a look. Technically there are some minor but glaring errors, notably in continuity, and it too often looks drab and theatrical, but most of the time it hits an acceptable note and occasionally shows considerable imagination and resourcefulness. The acting in general is of a high order, even if maybe the dialogue is by today's standards a little stilted.
It survives quite well watching back to back with "Slaughterhouse-5", and there is actually quite a bit more "good" filmed Vonnegut out there, mostly versions of his short stories - "Harrison Bergeron", "Who Am I This Time?" and some other things like, of course, the misfiring filmed version of his very funny but disposable play, "Happy Birthday Wanda June". Also there was an interesting piece , if it still exists, done in the 70s called "Between Time And Timbuktu" which Vonnegut apparently didn't like much, although he was involved in its production, because he felt it misinterpreted him in its generality. He said it reminded him of the bizarre surgical experiments performed in the HG Wells tale "The Island of Dr. Moreau", but it did for many people serve as an excellent introduction to his work.
But if the films don't make you want to go to the superior source material, they're not doing their job.
As the man said, more or less, the big show is inside your head.
The sadness and humor of Vonnegut translates to film? Amazing.
JLee-213 March 1999
I haven't read this book, but all through the movie I was awestruck with only one thought in my head: This is so Vonnegut. I have never seen an author, all of the intelligence and life behind the workings of a novel, translated so well to film. This movie had the same complexities found in Vonnegut's novels: the jokes were often meaningful and symbolic, and the dramatic events and symbols were often also jokes.
Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut "hero": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.
Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading "Cat's Cradle," my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus "White Christmas" albums. So it goes!
Campbell was also a very Vonnegut character, portrayed perfectly by Nick Nolte. He had all of the earmarks of a Vonnegut "hero": lack of concern for political boundaries, ironic dark humor giving way to dumb inactivity in response to stress, and an unwillingness to push his version of reality on those around him.
Overall, I was constantly surprised and impressed as I watched this movie. It was the same feeling I had reading "Cat's Cradle," my first Vonnegut novel, as if the most perfectly oddball thing that could happen, he thought of THAT, and he made it real and important. Yes, he has nothing but army surplus "White Christmas" albums. So it goes!
Movie just like Vonnegut's novels.
Jakeroo14 October 1998
It leaves you with a feeling of "Is that the way it's going to end?" Some of it is so implausible and illogical, such as the business of Russian spies trying to get Howard away from the Israelis or that Resi would be a Russian spy trying to kidnap him. It didn't work for me. Sheryl Lee, however, made it worthwhile - a vision of loveliness in her nude scene, much as she was in BLISS.
Sometimes oversentimental, but overall very good
heywood10025 May 2003
I haven't yet read the Kurt Vonnegut book this was adapted from, but I am familiar with some of his other work and was interested to see how it would be translated to the screen. Overall, I think this is a very successful adaptation of one of Vonnegut's novels. It concerns the story of an American living in Germany who is recruited as a spy for the US. His job is to ingratiate himself with high ranked Nazi's and send secret messages to the American's via his weekly radio show. But when the war ends he is denounced as a war criminal but escapes to New York, where various odd plot twists await.
If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.
If Mother Night has a problem it's that it tends to get a little too sentimental at times. But for most of the film the schmaltz is kept to a minimum and the very strange plot is carried through with skill and aplomb. And there are some fabulous moments of black comedy involving three right wing Christian fundamentalists and a very highly ranked Nazi in a prison cell. Very much recommended.
A perfect movie in every way
Elliot13 March 1999
While the movie does feel a bit long at times, it is well worth it. Gordon directs in a style that reminds you of Vonneguts writing styles. Merciless, thoughtful, ironic, quirky, and dark, this is a film which will stay with you for quite a while, begging for answers to impossible questions. Nolte, Goodman, and Arkin are all incredible. Sheryl Lee is wonderful as well, in a role that will remind us Lynch fans of her Laura/Maddy days. Do not miss this one!
The only perfect book to film adaptation
the coyote28 November 1999
Mother Night is one of my favorite novels and going to see this I was expecting a huge disappointment. Instead I got a film that perfectly portrays the irony, humor, elequence, and above all else the crushing sadness of Vonnegut's novel.
This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.
Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's "Blue Fairy Godmother."
This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.
Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author.
This is certainly Nolte's best preformance to date. He captures the defeat and selfloathing of Howard Cambell Jr. consistently from the subtle intonations of his speech to the held back tears behind his eyes.
Alan Arkin is absolutly hilarious as George Kraft. Sherryl Lee is haunting in her detachment from reality as Cambell's young lover. John Goodman is understated and more than effective as Cambell's "Blue Fairy Godmother."
This Pinnocioesque story of Cambell trying to be his own ideal hero and unwittingly becoming his ideal tragic villian is a mature and vivid look into what we are as people. And aside from that, it is one of the most deeply romantic films I have ever come across. Cambell is the incarnation of both foolish and wise love. And at the films sastifyingly painful conclusion, he finally learns what it means to be a real boy as his Blue Fairy Godmother grants him his wish. And he realizes that...well, watch the movie and you'll see.
Mother Night is without a doubt in my mind one of the best films ever made. It is a beautiful poetic story that digs deep within our emotions and is completely faithful to its original author.
Another failed attempt to bring Vonnegut to the screen
azureglo9 April 2006
Here's an exercise; Read a Kurt Vonnegut novel, notice the pathos and poetry, the black humour, the beauty of the language and ultimately the feeling of having become a little wiser about the Human race.
Now watch this detached, soulless drudgery of set pieces and three act tedium. Nolte destroys any attempt trying to portray the tragedy here, going for a weary and bored performance. And weary and boring it is, you can see where the money has been spent but not one cent results in translating Vonnegut's poetry to this medium.
It's sad to think of the few million dollars that was flushed down the tubes for this inept and insipid waste of film. It's one and only saving grace is a moving glimpse of the author as a passerby, in ten seconds of silent screen time Vonnegut himself packs more pathos and humanity than this turgid effort manages in nearly two hours.
Now watch this detached, soulless drudgery of set pieces and three act tedium. Nolte destroys any attempt trying to portray the tragedy here, going for a weary and bored performance. And weary and boring it is, you can see where the money has been spent but not one cent results in translating Vonnegut's poetry to this medium.
It's sad to think of the few million dollars that was flushed down the tubes for this inept and insipid waste of film. It's one and only saving grace is a moving glimpse of the author as a passerby, in ten seconds of silent screen time Vonnegut himself packs more pathos and humanity than this turgid effort manages in nearly two hours.
be careful what you pretend to be, and the movies you pretend to understand
bwetmore5 November 2001
I have just recently read the novel "mother night", I've owned the dvd for some time now, and watch it every so often. Few movies I own and have seen have made me think and question as much as Mother Night has, I am amazed at the brilliance not only of Vonnegut, but of the translation of his text to screen.
Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.
The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.
It will change you if you do.
Do not rent or watch this movie on VHS, it must be done on dvd, and it must be accompanied by the director's commentary on the film. To see how they took a fairly simple story, yet complex in its substance and dialogue, and made it work so well, I think any viewer will be amazed.
The omissions in the movie are few from the text, and do not detract from it much, the movie might as well be the book, and is the best adaptation I have ever seen. I so highly recommend both the book and movie together that it does a disservice to merely say go watch it.
It will change you if you do.
Nolte is a treasure
fred-houpt2 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I have yet to see a film with Nolte in it that I did not like. However, this being said, he's made a lot of films and I've seen just a few. In my minds eye I am keeping the images of his performance here and the one in "The Thin Red Line". Nolte has a a full range of acting talents. When it's necessary to shout he roars like a wounded lion. His best moments are the ones I treasure in actors: when he just emotes through facial, hand and body gestures, without saying anything. Having come to the conclusion that our present generation of actors, by and large, have no appreciation of what an actor can do without speaking, having no conscious appreciation of the mastery of Keaton and Chaplin, this generation of actors relies far too much on the mechanical wizardry of computers. Of course it is also just a sign of the times we live in. Had Chaplin lived in our times....who knows, he just might as well have become an aficionado of CGI tools.
I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.
Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.
So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.
The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.
I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.
Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part.
I have not read the Vonnegut novel from which this film comes to the screen. However, the plot is not so far fetched or convoluted that we cannot follow the path laid, even with all its surprises. Of course on the outset it appears preposterous. However, it is also not impossible.
Consider these for starters: A Spy at the Heart of the Third Reich: He Extraordinary Life of Fritz Kolbe, America's Most Important Spy in World War II by Delattre and Prichard (look at Amazon for more details). Consider: History Undercover: Piercing the Reich: American Spies Inside Nazi Germany DVD (I saw this here: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=75054) seems to be a History Channel production.
So, is the story ridiculous? Far fetched yes, impossible, no. Back to the plot. Nolte's character is recruited and accepts an impossibly dangerous mission and unfortunately the script does not give us an adequate reason why he accepts. Was it a type of passivity, that he got sucked into this role as it says because it was the best story he had ever written and he got to play the part? That's a hard thing to imagine any of us would grasp. But, it was an unusual time and people did extraordinary things.
The acting throughout the film by the entire cast is excellent and as people have pointed out Alan Arkin, always fantastic, is very good in a small role.
I was really shocked by the ending of the film (no - I won't spoil it) and it made me feel terrible about the choice. Did this person feel that the road was finally over and that he had spoken all that was necessary and that any more would be chapters added to a life already filled with many burnt pages? Hard to say but it really jolts.
Nolte gives one of the finest performances you can expect....the premises of the film make you wonder about a lot of things. It's very entertaining and provoking. What great movies should be. A bit long but worth it. By the way, the movie music has selections from one of the best living composers: Arvo Part.
The advantages of being a fan
karhukissa3 April 2007
Although I like Kurt Vonnegut, I'm not particularly interested in spy stories and I didn't know this one. The only reason I watched it was Nick Nolte, who is one of my favorite actors since I saw "Breakfast of Champions" and "Hotel Rwanda". But the film brought me a pleasant surprise. Of course Nolte was great, but so was the plot. There was relatively little political intrigue, and much more focus on the moral question: by reading his anti-Semitic radio commentaries with hidden secret messages to Americans, he in fact contributed to the general attitude of Germans (and, as it later turns out, Americans) towards Jews or Hitler. Which carries more weight, his service to his country or his unconscious contribution to anti-semitism? The dilemma is even more prominent as these words are never spoken, not even as narration. Howard Campbell Jr. (Nolte) is a person who learnt to hide his feelings so perfectly that he doesn't open up, not even in his memoirs. The inner conflict of such a character is almost impossible to portray - but with the help of excellent acting and photography, this film manages.
There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.
There are other points to it, such as the humor or the ironical use of romantic clichés (like the song White Christmas), that make it real different from average American movies. I recommend it to everyone who is bored with Hollywood spy movies.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
