So... no lifeguard, no gas station scene, no Chief on the fishing trip, no Doctor on the fishing trip, no Combine, no shower scene, no over-the-top Christ symbolism, no fog, no broken glass, no ripped uniform, no exposing of Nurse Ratched's breasts, no Harding's wife, no sexist themes whatsoever, no Chief getting EST, no guts ball, no geese, no moon, no dog ... and, yet, somehow still a powerful film. I'd like you to write about whatever you like here about the movie, the book, and how the two are similar and different. Here are a few questions to get you going:
1) Kesey started as a consultant on the film but left two weeks into production because, apparently, he didn't like the direction it was going. Can you see why?
2) Screenwriters and filmmakers have to make huge cuts from a novel to get it to fit into a two-hour movie. Do you think they made any mistakes in the editing process in writing this screenplay? In other words, did they leave out any scenes from the book that would have given the film more weight? Any tactical mistakes?
3) Budding screenwriters/directors: can you think of any way that Kesey's larger message about society could have been included in the film? Clearly they didn't want to go the route of the voice over -- probably a good choice.
Comparing the book to the movie, i can completely understand why Kesey would have walked out on the movie. They left out so much stuff, stuff that you know that kesey, as the author, would have spent a lot of time putting thought into. After all, kesey's book would have been like his baby, you know?, and to have what he probably considered all of the importants taken out probably made him pretty mad. Especially mad, however, because all of the parts that were cut as the story transitioned from book to movie form were the parts that spoke loudest about Kesey's message.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Cheif, the main character of the book, is all but dropped from the "main characters" list. not only that, but he no longer is the narrater. Because of this, the viewer no longer gets that sense of how crazy he was in the beginning, and just how scarred he is by the Combine. I can understand how having Chief's monotone voice narrating the whole movie could be a bit of a snooze fest, but it is largely due to Cheif's narration that Kesey is able express his opinions about society at large. It is only through Cheif's eyes that the mechanization of the Combine is revieled, or that the Combine is even labeled for that matter.
It is because of that one major cut that the the story transitions to a funny "feel good movie" about triumphs and losses in a mental ward, instead of the overall statement about defying stereotypes and being an individual that Kesey had originally planned.
I'm not that much of a movie person, honestly. In a movie, it takes a bit longer for me to get it, and I'm sure there are other people like that too - the ones who would have completely missed the significance of the lifeguard's single comment "they'll keep you here until there good and ready to let you go." Or the ones who would have been distracted by questions about indoor fences and missed something important that had happened. The book maybe made more sense to me. There may be others whose mind works int he opposite way, understanding movies and pictures more clearly than words and ideas.
ReplyDeleteIt seems safe to say that books and movies are simply very different. A book paints a picture with ideas, while the movie uses the picture to represent ideas. And a perfect intersection is nearly impossible to come by, especially since sometimes ideas just don't make sense when filmed using the real world.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest seems especially difficult to depict. Even after already having seen the movie, the goings-on (whatever they are) in my mind were very different as I read the book. I saw new images of machines and blurred edges, of fog and bigness in people. In this book, the narrator starts off right away with the idea that "even if it didn't happen, doesn't mean it's not true." In film, it would be very difficult to effectively depict such truth, when restricted to helplessly honest images of what happened. So the movie may not be better or worse, rather different.
After reading the book, I was slightly disappointed in Nurse Ratched's role in the film. Although her acting abilities could not have been any different from that of the true Nurse, her small physical appearance was enough to discount her firm voice. I expected a much larger woman who could intimidate people with her size and with her demanding voice.
ReplyDeleteThe first time I watched this film was in ninth grade and i watched it with some of my friends. I must say that having the pictures and setting already set out for me in my memory made it very difficult for me to use my imagination when reading the book. However, when I first watched the film I did not recognize any of the symbolic themes which are found throughout the book. I enjoyed the film both times I watched it and I enjoyed the book; however, I see them as to separate genres with two different intentions. Kesey intends to portray and illuminate an aspect of society, which, in his opinion, needs to be fixed. On the other hand the film is merely a source of entertainment, which can be entertaining for those who do not see the underlying themes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is impossible for a movie that is based off a book to be a satisfactory movie. Books take days, weeks, sometimes months to read; how can this much stuff ever be fit into a two-hour film? Viewers of films like these always have higher expectations than viewers of an original film. Personally, I viewed the symbolism in the book as a very important part. For this reason the movie was slightly disappointing. On the other hand, without ever reading the book beforehand I would not have the insight and understanding of the movie. Every action that the characters make has more significance because I knew that there was more behind the action.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of the film that surprised me was also Nurse Ratched's role. While I too expected her to be an intimidating, manipulative person, I find her role in the film intriguing. Her less severe role makes me wonder whether Chief exaggerated her cruelty in the book. It seems very possible now that she actually could have been like her character in the movie in the actual book, just that Chief made her out to seem worse.
I agree with the others who already stated that the movie and the book served different purposes. When a movie has the initial goal of covering a basic amount of material from a book, I believe that the movie is usually going to be not as deep. A film that is not based off a book has much more creative freedom and can thus become more deep. As Mr. H said in class, the symbolism in the book is the first thing to be cut out of a movie. This is what happened with Cuckoo's Nest, only skimming the surface of the book, making it a good movie but very different.
I completely agree with Sarah and her argument that it was right for Kesey to walk off the set. I was disappointed with the adaptation of the book to movie, though I am with almost every movie I see based off a book I read. In my opinion, there were ways that the screenwriter could have adjusted the scenes to bring in the significant parts of the novel. One of my favorite parts of the novel was the relationship between Chief and McMurphy and I think that they played that down way too much in the movie. Had I not read the book, I would have been screaming at the screen or whoever I was watching the movie with," Why did he kill McMurphy?" To me, they did not do a good job of building the relationship.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I thought of Nurse Ratched more like Dolores Umbridge, as someone else had pointed out at an earlier time. Though this actress did very well with her role, I pictured Nurse Ratched to have that evil eye towards everyone, especially during the group sessions. It seemed to me that Nurse Ratched was an innocent lady in the movie, whereas in the book she seemed like she should have been checked into the ward as well.
Because I feel that the true essence of the novel lies in the message about the Combine, the lack of it is what I am most disappointed about. Instead of making a statement, this movie for me became just a comedy, with a tragic ending of course, but still a pretty hilarious movie. Of course they could not have put everything in, but I do think they could have made Chief a much larger part and left out some of the unnecessary added stuff as a start to staying true to the book. Though I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it did not live up to the high set standards of the book.
I agree with AWalk and Erica's comments on Nurse Rached in the movie being very different from what I was picturing while reading the novel. For one, even my imagination couldn't think up that hairstyle of hers. However, she is much more calm in the movie and isn't painted in such a negative and pure evil light as in the book. As she tells the ward that she is leaving for the night, she shares a look with McMurphy, and seems to even genuinely smile for him. In the book, this exchange would never ever happen.
ReplyDeleteIn class today, the discussion was made that Harding's sexuality was a downplayed topic in the movie compared to in the novel. However, to add to what was said, like that during the fishing scene when he takes the wheel and says he is "going straight" that is really a play on words, I realized that there was another point in the movie where his sexuality is questioned. It is at the point when the ward is having one of their meetings and Cheswick is freaking out at Nurse about wanting the cigarettes and Harding pulls out one and lights it. The other men in the circle steal his cigarette and toss it around the room, having it wind up being caught in the pant leg of one of the men. Harding gets on his hands and knees and begins searching for his cigarette, winding up kneeling very close to the man in a way that on first glance would seem completely normal but when he begins apologizing to Nurse for getting up out of his chair and seems very sheepish and embarrassed, there is the possibility that this is in fact another nod towards his homosexuality.
Honestly, I don’t blame Kesey for getting out of there when he saw the direction the movie was going. Don’t get me wrong – the movie is great (and funny!) – but it is pretty vapid when it comes to conveying the themes that Kesey chose to feature in OFOTCN. It makes some good points, for sure, but there’s a limit to how deep you can get when you only have a captive audience for two measly hours.
ReplyDeleteI think Sarah touched on a really important note when she said that taking Chief out of the narrative role totally changes the vibe of the film; getting rid of Chief means getting rid of explanations about the Combine, which means that none of Kesey’s original social commentary remains! The viewers miss out on the comparison of the ward to society at large, and they also miss out on Kesey’s jab at the way Native Americans have been treated in American history.
As Mr. Harrington mentioned, there were no hints of sexist themes in the movie. Whatever your opinion about the sexism (or the lack thereof) in the novel, the movie really should have discussed how Nurse Ratched derives her power from emasculating the men. Perhaps that omission justifies the lack of a scandalous uniform-ripping scene, as that was an obvious climax of the “ball-cutting” theme in the book.
I personally enjoyed figuring out the themes and symbolism in the book, but if one were looking strictly for simple hilarity, hopping right into the thick of things with the movie might be the answer. I don’t know if the saying “read the book before you see the movie” is an exception, but it’s definitely not the rule!
1) I can see why, as an author, Kesey might have walked out of the making of the film. As Sarah said, he put a lot of time and energy into writing and perfecting this book that it must have seemed sinful to even consider the thought of cutting out one scene. the symbolism was a very important aspect to the book that was not even mentioned in the film. Kesey must have seen the way the directors and screenwriters were trying to put his epic book into a condensed, commercially successful block buster and walked out.
ReplyDelete2) I think that the filmmakers could have focused a bit more on some very important scenes in the book rather than on the basketball scene and other seemingly unimportant parts. the screenwriters mashed all of the three most important scenes into one overwhelming and confusing climax. I beleive that the breaking of the window by McMurphy was one of the most important parts of the book and it was very underplayed in the movie. the shower scene and Harding's sexuality seemed to be ignored as well.
3) Even with all of these complaints, I think that the movie portrayed the same moral that the book did; one should fight against the rules and regulations of conformity and opt for a freer, more individualistic stance on life. the directors' choice in scenes and whatnot I think could have been better, but they did a good job in sending the overall message to the audience. I also really enjoyed the film.
Like Sarah, I can definitely see as to why Kesey walked off set. Kesey wrote a well balanced book which includes a powerful message that society victimizes people and that one must rebel. The events which made the book powerful, for example, McMurphy ripping the nurse's shirt open, were eliminated from the movie to make it more enjoyable to the general audience. Also, I am positive that Kesey spent a good amount of time forming a connected plot which included deep symbolism. In the movie, the symbolism was deleted or diluted to the point that it was not obvious or recognizable.
ReplyDeleteAnother important point which made the movie less powerful then the book was that Chief did not narrate the movie. Chief gave the book structure and a view that created depth for the reader. Also, Chief provided a glimpse into the mind of an unstable person who gradually becomes saner. In the film, Chiefs' transition is not shown.
Although the film was well made and depicts many segments of the film accurately, it also skips many crucial scenes from the book. For example, Cheswick's death is completely ignored. If I had not read the book, the movie most likely would have satisfied me, but since I did read the book, the movie did not provide enough imagery or connections.
I really enjoyed this movie. Not only was it a nice break to just lie in a chair, zone out, and watch a movie, but also the film captured the spirit of the story. Luckily the movie was not as heavy as the book but I thought that the filmmakers did the right thing by softening up the intense emotions that the book gave off.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erica when she says no book can ever be perfectly reenacted into a movie. All readers picture a story in a different way, with different interpretations, values, and opinions, so all those aspects would be extremely difficult to incorporate into a movie.
But I do give credit to the wonderful casting and the great setting. The ward was exactly how I pictured it. McMurphy was perfect at his facial expressions, pretending insanity, and leader like remarks. Chief was absolutely perfect, with his giant hands, broom, and long Indian like hair. Billy Bibbit looked young and naive, worried and terrified of the Nurse, just like the story. And most of the supporting actors seem to be spot on.
However, I can see that the filmmakers and interpreters may have left some key portions of Kesey's novel out that may have persuaded Kesey to leave the set. The first scene that was particularly import to me was the suicide of Cheswick. Cheswick was a very engaging, loving and cheery character. In the movie, I think that actor catches his personality and look right on, but I thought that his suicide was important enough to be shown on screen. This is because Cheswick was a character I was attached too, and by his suicide, as a reader I was in shock at what the Combine and the ward could cause a patient to do. In my opinion, this fear and craziness of the ward was not shown off to the fullest extent.
The second scene that was key to showing off the cruelty and insanity of the Combine was the gas station scene. This scene in the story seemed to be extremely important in showing the fear of mental patients and the doubt that so called “crazies” could intervene in society. This view of the Combine was not shown well. In the story, the Combine is portrayed as evil and a place where people who cannot function like normal individuals, go. In the movie, it just seems that rather than the patients being quarantined, they focus on the rehabilitation of the patients in the ward.
I felt that this movie was correctly interpreted for a Hollywood award winner. The movie sent the general message across; that one should stand up for themselves. But did not show it in the detail like the book perfectly portrayed. The movie also allowed you to connect with Chief, McMurphy, and Billy Bibbit, which is extremely important when creating a Hollywood film. All in all, this was an excellent film
First of all, I really enjoyed watching the movie. It was extremely entertaining and I can see why it won five Academy Awards and six Golden Globes. This is a huge accomplishment for a movie, and it shows its success in the entertainment world, but compared to the book, it does not achieve the same effect.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the book, I imagined the ward as a much more mechanical, strict place without any freedom. It was described like a machine with gears and cogs that control the patients. In the movie, the appearance of the ward was accurate compared to the picture in my mind, but the way it was controlled was not. This is contributed to many factors.
For example, the image of Nurse Ratched in the movie is completely different from the one in the book. In the film, she seems to be sympathetic at times, partially due to her manipulative, yet gentle voice. She does not seem to emasculate the patients either. She is pictured as a "ball-cutter" in the book, but the movie does not show her fearful impact on the patients well enough.
I also wished that the movie included some of the most important scenes described in the novel. One scene the movie leaves out that I believe expresses part of the theme Kesey describes is when the guys stop for gas and intimidate the men teasing them. This shows that they can stand up against the challenges that they face because they are men, not crazy rabbits. They would discover their manhood further when they laugh on the boat and catch huge fish.
There are many more scenes that can be discussed, but overall, the movie left out some important parts in the book. However, I was able to interpret the larger themes from the book, like standing up against something that puts you down. Society is a "combine" that produces people who obey and have no individuality. This movie does show that forces like the combine (or the ward) can be fought against and overcome.
Well, I for one really enjoyed our movie week in class. It was definitely a nice transition form our essay test on OFOTCN to watching the movie in class!
ReplyDeleteTo start off, I definitely agree with both Erica and Molly in that movies are often extremely different than their literary counterparts; in books, readers often get a much deeper feel for the core meanings that the author is attempting to portray, whereas in movies, the director is restricted to a certain amount of time and has the difficult job of getting the main themes across while getting compared to the book the entire time.
Regarding this film in particular, I'd say it did a pretty good job. The setting was spot on. The mental ward was exactly how I had pictured it, with the exception of Disturbed, which I had mentally pictured to be much more restrictive and scary. Most of the characters were close to what I had imagined as well, except for Harding, whom I had pictured to be younger, skinner and more overall effeminate, and the Big Nurse, whom I had pictured to be short, fat and way more evil than portrayed. Although the movie did a nice job with the setting and characters, I thought that the plot lacked some aspects that would have further exemplified the story's overall meanings. I think that the movie would have benefitted from incorporating Cheif a bit more; that way, when the final scene happens, audiences won't be as shocked. I also thought the movie could have put a larger emphasis on the control panel scene. As gaining control of one's life was one of the most important themes within the novel, the movie would have definitely benefitted from playing up that scene a bit more.
Overall, I really enjoyed watching this movie and I hope that we will get to have more movie watching weeks soon!
Even though I only saw the last 59 minutes of the movie, I am going to do my very best to do an accurate comparison of the two.
ReplyDeleteFist off, the positives: I found that the movie got Billy Bibbit, Chief, and McMUrphy right on. From the stutter to the outrageous height, to the over the top confidence it was pretty great. Also, despite what others might feel, I thought Nurse Ratched was done very well. A lot of the fiery tension between Nurse Ratched and McMurphy is subliminal. With that being said, I think the movie did an excellent job of conveying an unspoken hatred between the two of them.
Truthfully, the only serious complaints I have about the movie were the way they portrayed the black boys and Harding. First, I felt the black boys were supposed to be a lot more maniacal and I wanted the connection between them and Nurse Ratched to be more natural. I thought they were supposed to be able to “sense” what she wanted and then be able to do it, without her saying anything. Furthermore, I didn’t really like how they portrayed Harding. It should have been obvious to the viewer that he was struggling with being gay, instead I felt the movie made his character a lot smaller then how it was in the novel.
As far as Kesey walking out the first two weeks of production, I kind of understand where he is coming from. This novel was his bride and joy, and he probably looked at the script and everything they were cutting out and felt that they were distorting the true meaning of the novel. For example, the lack of emphasis on the Combine and the Control Panel, ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Without the Combine or the Control Panel then the movie loses all of the social connections that Kesey had worked so hard to try and emphasize. I noticed Molly said that she enjoyed that the movie wasn’t as “heavy” as the novel. Well, I think that is the thing that would have pissed Kesey off most of all, this movie isn’t meant to be your regular Saturday night flick. No, it’s supposed to be revealing and impactful and meant for people that were ready to make some changes.
At the same time, I feel for the movie too. It would be incredibly difficult to emphasize all of the feelings that are in the book accurately. There main goal, is to get people interested in the movie, so more people will come and see it, so I understand why the movie would take out things that they felt would detract form viewer rankings. I mean, do the movies ever portray the book well. Harry Potter no, Twilight, no, so with that track record working against it, the movie did a pretty descent job.
Well, there it is, I gave the best review of a movie that I ‘d only seen the last 59 minutes of.
Hello! I completely agree with Katie about Billy, Chief, and Mack. All three of these characters were exactly how I had imagined them. Chief was by far my favorite, because he was SO INCREDIBLY TALL. It was insane. Billy Bibbit was one of those characters that, I found, was very hard to ignore. His stutter was perfect, especially in the scene when he came out of the room with Candy, I really liked how he spoke normally and then after the “mother” line, he went back to his stutter. Mack’s character was brilliant. Jack Nicholson did a great job portraying the catalyst in the ward. He really used his partial insanity to bring out the fighter in all of the characters.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with Katie and say that Nurse Ratched was not done well. I thought the BIG nurse would actually be quite large. I also thought that she would be less calm, as well as less pretty. There was no combine-like quality to her character, as there was in the book. I was a bit disappointed, although she was a great actress.
Based on these observations, I can see why Kesey could have quit. Aside from the deletions of key parts, like Cheswick’s death, although he was adorable, and Chief on the fishing trip, many of the characters were not portrayed as they were described in the book. Also, the theme was altered, in my opinion. There was no longer that feeling that they were becoming manufactured parts, I only saw them getting cured. The theme of the book was the fighting and sticking it to the man, but the movie was more like a story about a rebel in the ward. Both have that “fighter” aspect to it, but the movie did not depict it very well. The most disappointing part was the scene towards the beginning when Mack tried to lift the control panel. Kesey had written that scene as if it was a great struggle and no one wanted to try it. In the movie it was just Mack trying to get it but he couldn’t. He also threw away that line “at least I tried.” So yes, I can see why Kesey left the set, because the movie totally went against the book.
I agree with Molly in the sense that a movie can never capture the full effect that a book does. The book and the movie clearly had different goals. Despite the fact the movie didn't accurately mirror the happenings of the book, they did a good job casting characters and making the most of the time they had.
ReplyDeleteI thought Jack Nicholson did an excellent job in the role of McMurphy. He did not exactly match the McMurphy Kesey described in the novel, but he still held his own in the charecter.
I agree with Katie in the sense that Harding was not appropriately portrayed. It was not evident in the movie that he was educated and struggling with being gay. I think that this is one detail the movie missed on.
The movie did get a point across about control and conformity, but by leaving out the fog and control panel a lot of the support to the theme was lost.
One of the biggest changes from the movie to the book was not having Chief as a narrator. This completely changed the dynamic of the relationships and the story itself. McMurphy and chiefs relationship was much less developed and you lose the perspective of someone from the ward observing the happenings of the ward. I think if they had kept chief as a main character throughout the duration of the book opposed to just at the end it would have helped to better capture the story.
Obviously the main goal of the movie was for entertainment purposes. Whether or not the message of combine was not of great importance to them. I think the best way they could have portrayed that theme was to have Chief narrate the story. But because he didn't in the movie, there would have been no really good way of accomplishing the same and still making the movie somewhat entertaining.
ReplyDeleteLiza makes a good point that the relationship between McMurphy and the big Nurse was much less symbolic and dramatic than what it was in the book. I do think Chief did a fantastic job of doing what he could to make it seem like he admired McMurphy and his rebelliousness.
In respect to Harding and Cheswick not being developed enough in the movie i thought it was the correct thing to do. If too many characters are built up in the movie, then either the movie will be too long or the overall story line of the movie would not flow very well.