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.
Okay then... We covered a lot in class today - what's missing, what the movie didn't get exactly right, what the movie messed up completely, why it just wasn't the same - and it's recapitulated nicely in the prompt. To answer the bullets, I'm guessing one of Kesey's main arguments against the movie's direction was that it was not going to be narrated by Chief, or actually feature him as an important character at all. Having the novel told from Chief's perspective really affected the messages and meanings of the story, and not including that in the movie removed the entire (central) theme of society and the Combine and all of the other related themes and connections. Granted, this would have been extremely difficult to fit into a movie practically and in a way that would make sense. Another problem: many of the scenes go unexplained or end inconsequentially (which is really really annoying). The fishing scene has no direct lead in or follow up; McMurphy's attack on Nurse Ratched seems to have no reason; Chief smothers McMurphy for no readily apparent reason either. (So far, this is pretty much what we talked about in class....and the rest of this comment will probably be a summary of it too. Oh well. I'm first so I get to say it all first. Yay!) In any case, the movie did get most of the characters and the setting right, if not the plot, themes, and pretty much everything else. All in all, the movie was good, but did not tell the real story of the novel, mostly because there's not enough time to do so properly, and it's just easier to cut out the chunks all together. And with that I think I've pretty much covered it.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (movie) was an incredible and accurate film. One of the biggest challenges a producer faces when making a movie based off a novel is making the movie short enough to attract an audience, and also making sure that it conveys the same message that the novel does. The producers of the movie obviously added, cut, and combined several scenes from the book I order to convey the message more efficiently. Had they taken every scene in the book and featured it in the movie, it would be well over 5 hours, and honestly, who wants to watch a movie that long? It is hard to judge whether or not a movie accurately represents the novel after having read and analyzed the book. However, one of the reasons why I am convinced that One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is successful in depicting the novel is because I was able to carry out a detailed and analytical discussion with my dad, who only saw the movie. He was able to identify some of the major themes in the novel, which we discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteI understand why Kesey might have been upset or dissatisfied with the movie based off his book, but I also think he failed to comprehend the limits and restrictions the producers had to work with in creating the film. Nevertheless, I also believe the producers left out some essential parts of the novel, which they could have added without much difficulty. For example, in the movie, Chief doesn’t go on the fishing trip with the Acutes. In the novel, this scene is what truly separates him from the other chronics, and his relationship with McMurphy changes drastically. Another important scene which the movie did not feature was the gas station scene, where the patients get a feeling of importance and confidence. The movie does make up for it however, when McMurphy tells the dock manager that they are all doctors. He presents them as dr. Harding, dr.Cheswick, etc. The movie also portrays some characters inaccurately. Dr. Spivey, for example, plays a major role in the novel, taking the patient’s side against the nurse, but in the movie he is barely mentioned once or twice. Harding is also misrepresented in the movie. In the novel, unlike the movie, he has trouble controlling his hands and emotions. Also, in the movie he seems completely sane and normal, but in the novel he is a little confused and torn over his previous sexual problems. In terms of setting, the movie lacked machinery. In the novel, big machines represented the combine, an inhumane force, fighting against individuality. All in all, I still think that the movie is a solid effort to summarize a classic novel. Not only did it conveyed a pretty accurate message to the audience, but it was also humorous and entertaining, If only the men were naked when the got in the fight…..(zack emge).
ReplyDeleteLike Daphne said, we covered a lot in class today, but of course we didnt get eveyone's opinions! I think that overall the movie was very good and hit the main importance that McMurphy made for those at the ward. The setting was pretty accurate, except for no machinery and i pictured the ward to be a little more dark and plain. I completely understand why Kesey left after two weeks. The movie is significantly different from his book, but like Gonzo said the producers are obviously unable to put in ALL of the important scenes. So as an overall view, the movie covered the most important so that if someone watched it and didnt read the book would understood most of it. Having read the book beforehand though was a great advantage. The one scene that i believed was a bad decision to leave out was when Chief went along on the fishing trip. The before the trip, during and after was very vital to building the courage in himself and forming a better relationship with McMurphy. What I also found interesting was how sexism was barley portrayed in the movie at all. Harding's wife is never see, Billy's mom is never seen either and we never know why he doesn't want her to know about Candy (if we didnt read the book), and Nurse Ratched is not like her character in the book at all. She looks completely different, not like a man at all, very feminine and is not as cruel as well.
ReplyDeleteWell, the movie was pretty good. Especially (ESPECIALLY) with caramel hot chocolate. Yum. Anyway, there were a few things that I didn't like. One, Harding seemed pretty off to me. I mean, why on Earth was the actor so.. normal looking? I personally would use harsher terms, but I'll stick to that one. I imagined most of the characters to be more similar to Billy.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, Billy was spot on for me; he had a 'crazy' hairdo, his stutter played in nicely (more or less) and his innate ability to make me sympathize with him made it a great casting. I think he hit a sympathy chord with a lot of other people (at the end when everyone was mad at the lady with the freaky hair)
SPEAKING OF WHICH (2.0) the nurse was a miss too. She seemed.. how do I put this, plastic? I could tell she wasn't normally in that role; her eyes were eerie, but aside from that it seemed more fitting for her to be a nice character rather than a mean one. We got a glimpse of that at the end (when she's talking to Scanlon with her neck-brace) her nice side shows, and it seems much more fitting for the actress.
And then theres Chief. Good ol' Chief, with his prancing. That was classic gold - a 6 foot Indian giant with hands that could crush cars - prancing up and down a basketball court like a proud toddler. The movements of Chief were pretty accurate (prancing aside) but the speech was.. quiet. There are easy ways to improve someone's voice in a movie, and it would have cost probably an extra hour's worth of pay for them to do that. Another thing that bothered me was the fact we never got to know Chief. For me, the movie seemed more focused on Billy than on Chief, but maybe that's just because I like Billy. Whatever.
At any rate, I liked the movie as entertainment, but from a philosophical movie it really seemed to miss the mark. If I hadn't read the book, I would have definitely thought the book was from McMurphy or Billy's point of view, because they get the most screen time and lines.
The aspect about the machines (as everyone has already said) was completely gone, so the metaphor to society went with it (like a loving dog; aww..) Which would probably confuse people who have only seen the movie as to what the movie is actually about on a deeper level. In fact, I think that if I hadn't read the book, I would have simply assumed it was on the same level as most shoot-em-up films: good entertainment, but nothing truly meaningful. Probably the only thing I would've been able to pull out of it is that Billy didn't want to let his mom down, and that Harding was in the ward for mere entertainment.
tl;dr? Probably.
Who can blame Kesey for walking out on production of this movie? It was a great movie in the end, but it was no more than that: just a movie. People don’t go to the movies to watch deep, complex and life changing films; they go for entertainment. So while it would have be nice for those who read the book to see the important themes represented in the movie, it is not realistic from a producer’s point of view. Plus, what author wants to see their work chopped up and thrown back together in any way other than the way they wrote it originally? The producer’s had to change aspects of the book and cut out and compact important scenes to make it short enough to be a movie. They want to make it accessible for all audiences, not just the intellectuals who actually read the book (like us ☺). My mom and dad have both seen the movie, but have not read the book (or just can’t remember it) and I asked them both what they thought the theme of the movie was. My dad said, “What a bitch Nurse Ratched was!” and my mom talked about the horrible treatment of the inmates and the unity brought upon them by McMurphy. And while that is all part of the book, that is really only the meaning that lies on the very surface. The movie on its own is very powerful, but on a different, more superficial level. The book goes so much deeper. In the novel, everything that happens in the ward either symbolizes something or represents a theme. None of the symbols really apply to the movie in the same we that we understood them to in the book. I couldn’t watch the movie and come to the conclusion that cigarettes are a symbol for masculinity, or that gambling represents taking risks in life. And this is probably because in the movie symbols really don’t apply. I think the change that most affected the meaning of the movie was that Chief could not narrate it. Without any narration, there can be no bias, no opinion and no background information. We didn’t get any information about the combine in the movie, which is arguably the most important theme of the book. I think Chief still should have narrated the movie. A voice over would have been great. But hey, it was still a great movie. Movies and books are just completely different mediums, and it is impossible to turn one into the other perfectly.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone!
ReplyDeleteYour blog comes across as a little shallow and weak. "I personally would use harsher terms, but I'll stick to that one" - thanks Matthew
Ok so first off, APLC homepage picture = HOTTT. Love those babes <3
ReplyDeleteAnyways…
1) I can definitely see why Kesey chose to leave two weeks into production; they weren’t producing the same story, Kesey’s input would have been useless anyways. I mean, it was the same very basic idea, but they’re gone about in very different ways. They’re similar in the sense that they’re both about a group of guys that are struggling with independence while attending a mental hospital. The movie, however, seems much more centered around general tomfoolery and sticking it to the nurse and the few other authoritative figures. The book is more complex with the whole idea of the Combine (with the nurse and others being more symbolic) and emasculation. The movie and the book had two different focuses with the same very basic plot line.
2) I think there were a handful of scenes that were cut that were pretty important, even if the movie was going in a different direction than the book. I think a huge point of the story is to make McMurphy’s actions seem legitimized, which the movie didn’t always do because of left out scenes that contained background information. The major and noteworthy scenes we talked about in class. Chief’s relationship with McMurphy and his development as a character with the help of McMurphy (McMurphy’s touching promise to make Chief big) should have been included in the movie. With that, the so delicate and significant scene at the end when Chief smothers McMurphy to death, seems a little out of place. Without articulating McMurphy’s general concern for the patients (like the shower scene or the “gutsball” words of encouragement given to Chief), many of McMurphy’s actions just seem like they’re for the hell of it (the cough syrup party) and/or uncalled for (choking Nurse Ratched).
3) I know what really gave the book the Combine feel for me was the whole emphasis on routine, which I didn’t get a sense of in the movie. Chief even went so far as go through the daily schedule in the book but in the movie, trying to fit all the eventful scenes into two hours produced an eventful, un-routined story. I recognize the difficulty in representing this in the movie, but the displays of machinery were also really important in representing the culture of the Combine. Even machinery references or more dialogue about what the Combine was would have been helpful in articulating the restrictions of society at that time.
Aly Barrett made the last comment. I have no idea why it made my name all weird.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm going to have to disagree with Maddie- I go to the movies to see deep, life-changing films that really move me. APRIL FOOL this is coming from the dork seeing Gnomeo and Juliet this weekend. Aww yeah!
ReplyDeleteAnyways..
I just want to point out the first thing I thought of, that I thought was a major difference.
Nurse. Ratched. Isn't. Scary.
Okay, so her hair is a tad... creepy? But in no way does she accurately represent the terrifyingly tyrannical nurse from the book. She has authority over the patients in the movie- but I think that they are not AFRAID of her. They are merely such timid people that they will obey anyone with a firm voice. Such as McMurphy- they love him and aren't scared of him in the least... and yet they obey his direction (such as when he yells "Sit down!") more than they obey hers. Why is that? In the book, Ratched has total power. Not just physical power. Yes, she is restraining their cigarettes, but in the book, she is also asserting herself over their manhood, their sanity, their self-confidence, and so much more. In the movie, she is merely an authority figure and nothing to really fear, nothing evil. That was one of my biggest issues with this movie.
I also had a problem with McMurphy. In the book he is a Christ-like figure. He selflessly suffers through the combiine in order to provide a positive example of how to leave unscarred. In the movie, he complains often and talks about how he wishes he weren't there. None of his acts seem selfless... there is always an ulterior motive. The party he threw for the men could have been seen as something he did for their benefit, to make them more manly and give them a fun distraction fromthe combine, if it weren't for the fact that he too was having fun... It seemed like he just wanted to have a party for himself and they happened to be attending. The most obvious example of the lack of character development was at the end when he strangled the Nurse. Instead of the strangling being a culmination of his work to undermine her, to deliberately disobey her rules in a non-agressive way, and show the men that it was possible to triumph against evil and opressive soicety, like it was in the book, it felt... well, basically, like a crazy man lunging at an innocent woman out of psychotic rage. It didn't seem like a sacrifice at all.
Those are my main problems with the movie. Not going to lie, though, I definitely enjoyed the film... I quite liked the interesting hairstlyes from Billy to Nurse to Cheswick's awkward tuft.
In all, I thought it was an adequate representation of the EVENTS of the story, but not necessarily the THEMES (such as sacrifice or the machine) or FEELINGS (such as the terror Niurse should exude or the growing strength of Chief).
The end!
:)
I was trying to think about how I would have viewed the movie differently if I had not read the book and I think a lot of things would not have made sense to me. The biggest concept that I would have thought to be totally random was Chief's importance in the movie. In the book, there is no doubt that he is one of the main characters- if not the main character- but in the movie he was just another patient. What made it even more difficult was that he didn't talk for the first 3/4th of the movie (well duh), so I probably would not have thought of him as much more than 'that tall guy with the oddly feminine haircut'. I think the main problem was that the relationship between McMurphy and Chief did not have the same strength that it had in the book. In the book, McMurphy was giving Chief the power to stand up and break out of his comfort zone, but in the movie, that whole sense of helping and caring was completely omitted from McMurphy's character. In the book I felt that McMurphy and Chief connected on a deeper level than McMurphy did with the other patients. You could see that Hollywood tried to show that Chief and McMurphy had a deeper relationship than McMurphy's relationships with the other patients by having McMurphy wink at Chief and the gum scene where Chief spoke to McMurphy. However, I feel like the deal between McMurphy and Chief should have been included in the movie to have the ending and their relationship make sense.
ReplyDeleteOther issues I had with the movie were M. Ratched's minions and Ms. Ratched herself. When I read the book I was pretty much terrified of the '3 black boys' as Chief saw them and pictured them to be demonic, faceless, and just pure evil. I was trying to think of an example of what they remind me of, but the only examples I can think of are the flying monkeys from Wizard of Oz and the three hyenas from Lion King. I pictured them just crawling around the ward and really having no personal opinion; they only listened to orders and enjoyed causing the other patients pain. However, in the movie, I thought that they were actually comedic and I was actually caught off guard when three human beings played their role. As for the Nurse, I agree with Emily in that she is not scary. The only thing I found immediately frightening about her was that she looks strikingly similar to my best friend's mom. I also thought that her hair was rather distracting because it was always constructed in the same, pinned up curl way. I also imagined her as not a human, but like some sort of demonic, robotic evil, as well. I agree with what Aly said in class about how Hollywood could have made the audience think that she was evil even if she had a smile on her face.
I could write more right now but I am falling asleep. But on an ending note, I am extremely happy that the director kept the basketball scene where Martini threw the ball to the 'other' players on the court, who turned out to be no one at all. I thought that was the funniest thing ever when I read it the first time.
Ahhhh very well done everybody. I too feel that the movie version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was a great movie, hitting on key points and themes that were found throughout the book. On the topic of Kesey leaving the production due to the direction it was going is comical to me because what other direction was it supposed to go!?! It went in the same path of the book, but with a few shortcuts that were necessary in order to make a successful film. Kesey should have just been a big boy and went along with it because in the long run he probably could have made the movie better even with the shortcuts made by the producers. Then again, Kesey doesn’t have to sit there while his version of a story is slightly altered in a movie based on his book, right? I guess that’s his way of not letting society press him down, which leads me to now talk about the screenwriters’ jobs on making a quick replica of the settings and theme of breaking out of the clutches and rules of society.
ReplyDeleteOnce again about the movie, we all agree that putting everything we read in the book would be a bit excessive in a Hollywood movie. Like Gonzo said, we probably then would have been watching a five hour movie and might as well have been watching a documentary about the book instead. We also have to consider that a large part of the audience that watched this movie either never touched the book in their lives or probably didn’t even know it existed. However, for us as readers of the amazing novel we do get a bit disappointed by not seeing the uncontrollable creative hands of Harding, the gas station scene, Chief going on the fishing trip, and Nurse Ratched’s scary portrayal. Personally, I think that it was ok that Harding’s hands weren’t all excited because those who have never read the book would wonder what the heck he was doing while those who have read the book understand why he is doing that. The guys feeling important and empowered in the gas station scene was definitely made up by the fishing trip scene when they were all recognized as “doctors” (some of their faces were hilarious). The fact that Chief wasn’t on the fishing trip beats me and I don’t what the screenwriters’ intentions were when they did cut him out of that scene. Last, Nurse Ratched’s portrayal of just being a super scary and oppressive figure being left out made sense to me. I mean, its not like the Umbridge lady you guys were talking about in the Harry Potter Movie, this was movie was to portray a realistic setting (remember we aren’t in the exaggerating mind of Chief). If all Big Nurse did was yell and walk around really scary, she wouldn’t have seemed like a nurse to me, but more like a witch. Instead, she acts like a realistic nurse who is at a MENTAL WARD, yet the looks she gives, in my opinion, made her jjust as scary.
Finally to capture the whole theme of society I thought was pretty well done by the movie. However, in order to get a stronger feel for when Chief escapes the ward, Chief would have had to be a more relevant character in the production instead of a background character. But like someone (I think Sloan) said in class, imagine how hard it would be to find a 6 foot 8 inched beast of an Indian who could act. They did what they could do with what they had and I appreciate the novel and still felt it, as well as, saw the different themes about society. I can go on and on but ill leave it at this and say that once again the movie was great, that the overall movie wasn’t really disappointing and that those who read the book get a more enriched experience when they see the film because they know the deeper meanings of some of the scenes.
Favorite Scenes: Basketball Game (Chief and Maritini are ballers), Mcmurphy asking the doctors if he should pretend to jerk off and make silly noises in order to “have a problem”, The party scene and when they all got drunk (priceless).
I'm not sure how much the movie hit on all of the key themes of the book... there was one weak mention of the combine and the crossing paths of McMurphy and the patient's sanities was not shown well. I can see why Kesey left the movie making. He was a "big boy" and wouldn't be associated with the making of a movie that butchered his book. The movie was not about society, as a jumbled plot of nothing, with chief seemingly randomly escaping at the end.
ReplyDeleteTo do the book justice, the movie would need to be ten hours long and have every single scene because every scene is relevant to the book and its meaning.
Brian you are such a beast. Overal I thought this movie was inspirational and deserved to be named as one of the greastest films of the 20th century. However, as far as hitting key ideas in the book and somewhat imitating Kesey's meaning and purpose, the director struck out. Along with missing key moments in the book, the biggest part that I felt impacted me as a viewer was the lack of manlieness that Nurse Ratched had. Yes, the director had to mak a movie that would b relevant to all of his audience, whether they read the novel or not. However, part of recreating an entire novel, you must include most key events and characters. As for the positive side, I believe the movie did a great side on depicting the setting and most of the characters such as McMurphy and Billy Bibbit. Overal, I enjoyed this movie and recomend it to anyone. Some of my favorite scenes include the basketball game, martini and his awkwardness lol, like brian the jerking off (typical boys), and lastly Chiefs lifting of the panel and breaking the glass, it touched my heart.
ReplyDeleteTo compare the book to the movie is, to use the most cliche phrase possible, is like comparing apples to oranges. They each succeed in their own right. However, a few major changes could have been made in the movie to 1) make it a closer adaptation of the book and 2) make the movie even more powerful. I think the movie's biggest failure was the first breaking of the glass. That is potentially the most important scene of the entire novel, and it was practically brushed over. This was supposed to be a massive declaration of war by McMurphy, and it instead came off as a desperate attempt to shut Cheswick up. Oh, there was another failure of the movie. Now don't get me wrong, I loved the portrayal of Cheswick, but his death is monumental to the whole of the novel, as it shows how McMurphy has influenced some of the patients to make drastic decisions to escape their prison. Another huge, and i think detrimental, difference was the use of a washing station instead of the control panel to break out of the prison. The control panel is symbolic of everything that McMurphy and co. are fighting against in the novel, yet it receives no attention at all in the movie. That's like Harry Potter minus Snape (well, at least evil Snape from books 1-6. I would apologize for the spoiler, but come on, everyone knows what happens). If it weren't for the amazing choice of actors for the movie, it definitely could have fallen flat, but Jack Nicholson saved the day with a brilliant performance. If I was Kesey, I would have left after two weeks, as well. How frustrating must it be to see your creation, something you worked on for years, something hailed as an instant masterpiece, changed and molded by a group of inferior writers into a shadow of what it once was? I would be pissed. It's one thing to take away some minor scenes, but to take away important scenes, change the existing ones, and add a few that were never there? I wouldn't be able to handle that.
ReplyDelete