GRADE: B

Had director Robert Altman’s “M*A*S*H” not beaten this fine Mike Nichols’ offering to theaters by a matter of mere months, perhaps “Catch-22” would have become the film most often cited as a prototypical example of modern anti-war satire.

Plagued by production difficulties, loads of pre-release criticism, and Paramount’s misleading promotional campaign, which portrayed the film as a pure comedy (it’s not), it faired poorly with critics and quickly faded at the box office. When viewed through a different lens, however, “Catch-22” is a superior, surreal comedy-drama that ultimately has more to say about the folly of war than Altman’s highly successful creation.

Based on Joseph Heller’s acclaimed best-seller, which most moviegoers had not read, “Catch-22” is a far more graphic examination of war than audiences were prepared for or had seen in “M*A*S*H,” which further contributed to its box-office woes. Also adding to those woes was the fact that many viewers were not able to connect with Nichols’ unique directing technique, which captures the dreamy, time-shifting structure of Heller’s semi-autobiographical masterpiece in spectacular, albeit non-linear, fashion.

Set in 1944, somewhere within the Mediterranean theater of war, “Catch-22” tells the bizarre tale of Capt. Yossarian, a sane, but burned-out bombardier with more than 50 missions to his credit who desperately wants to be grounded, as do his fellow fliers. In an effort to achieve that longed for status, Yossarian does everything he can to convince the top brass he’s crazy, including showing up completely naked for a big-shot general’s review of the troops. Other pilots get into the act, but none of them, no matter how outlandish their antics, is able to convince the Army that they should no longer be allowed to fly combat.

Things at the makeshift airbase go from bad to worse as commanders keep increasing the number of missions pilots are required to fly and an overly ambitious and entrepreneurial supply sergeant barters away most of the troop’s food and supplies. It’s then Yossarian realizes he’s faced with making a fundamental choice—he can either come to accept the absurdity of his situation or go AWOL.

With a mammoth cast of big name stars, “Catch-22” is an alternately harrowing and hilarious experience. It’s also more insightful, and ultimately more effective, than “M*A*S*H,” cutting much closer to the bone to expose the callousness and cruelty of American military leaders who are often more concerned with power and prestige than the health, well being and preparedness of the men under their command.

Alan Arkin stands out as the desperate and conflicted Yossarian in a biting and sometimes ethereal script by Buck Henry that contains many moments that are even funnier upon reflection, especially considering the film’s off-kilter narrative, which zigzags between times and places, not all of which are real. It’s a challenging film, not only in terms of the unconventional structure being used, but because of its uncompromising combination of bombast and brutality.

While many other wartime satires have fallen short or failed by going too far over the top, “Catch-22” succeeds—a crazy, kooky concoction with an eye for the ruthless and an assured understanding of the paradoxical nature of war and life itself.

#