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.
4) Would you go so far as to say that the film version of OFOTCN has different themes as the original novel?
Like we discussed in class today, the movie and the book are COMPLETELY different. If we had seen the movie before the book, we would have gotten a completely different message.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the first question, I can clearly see why Kesey left the film set. Like you mentioned, Mr. Harrington, the movie did not include several key scenes in the novel. Not only did it skip over scenes such as Cheswick's suicide and Chief's dreamy scene, but it also changed scenes (especially the ending) and took on a whole new perspective to the story. In his novel, Kesey uses Chief to narrate the whole thing, and we get a direct sense of one of the patients, through their thoughts and decisions. Because of this, the reader forms an emotional connection to Chief and the scene in the end when Chief escapes, therefore, is so much more meaningful.
Kesey had arguments over the producers and eventually left because of this probably because they took the movie into a completely different direction. It is about the patients as a group, and their trials and tribulations, rather than Chief and his opinions about the Combine. It also leaves out Chief's powerful bond with McMurphy, which tells us quite a bit about both of their characters. In fact, we get a unique sense of every single character in the novel (from Chief's opinions of course).
This especially includes Nurse Ratched. In the movie, we see her more as a strict, harsh figure over the entire ward. However, in the novel, we see her from Chief's perspective-- and his opinion of her transforms. He is originally fearful of her and unwilling to do anything about this fear, but through the course of the novel, he becomes stronger and ultimately defies her in his own way.
I understand Kesey's reasons for quitting the movie project. He probably felt that they were completely misinterpreting his writing, and he did not want to be part of something that was so off-base. Through his novel, he is attempting to convey a message about society, conformity, and even adversity. These themes are not conveyed nearly as well in the movie.
Personally I preferred the book over the movie, because I really made a connection to Chief and especially to his bond with McMurphy. But it was still pretty good!
Props to Meghan for writing so much. I was out for most of the film, but from what I did see, the movie skimmed the surface of the book. The acting is what made this disregard for the book's themes and plot bearable, as it was nice to see actual faces behind the characters in the book. Granted, the book had to be crushed into two hours, but what they chose to include seemed to skirt around many of the messages of the novel.
DeleteAfter reading the book, it was pretty neat to see how each character was played out in "real life", but if I had not read the book, I never wouldn't have gotten the same meaning out of the film. I feel like this was mainly due to the difference of perspectives. In the book, the viewer sees the world from the eyes of an insane man, which adds another layer of depth to the story. In the movie, however, focuses the movie on McMurphy, who regards the ward with a certain amount of indifference. Of course, it's hard to tell the story from the perspective of a deaf-mute, but I feel like that issue could have been addressed. For example: have Nurse Ratched pull back her skin to reveal wires and machinery. I know that might sound too "Terminator" but at least it would have gotten the point across.
Anyways, I can see why Kesey left within the first few weeks, as big themes, such as gender roles, weren't really addressed. Sure, there's enough content in the film for those who read the book to get the reference, but each issue isn't really examined like it could, and should, be. The film focuses more on McMurphy's rebel mentality, and less on his martyrdom, which is one of the main themes in the novel. That alone is enough for Kesey to quit.
Anyways, despite the films lack of loyalty to it's original inspiration, the acting, cinematography and characters seemed to redeem for those who read the book, and make it all the more appealing for those who didn't.
I can definitely see how Kesey would be frustrated with the direction that the movie was going in. The movie loses a lot of the things that make the book unique and powerful in meaning. Like Meghan said, the book is narrated by chief, which shows the whole coming out of the fog and combine themes that were completely ignored in the movie. This coming out of the fog shows that Chief once was crazy, and thanks to Mcmurphy he is no longer crazy but healed. In the movie it almost seems more like Mcmurphy is the bad guy when he attacks Nurse Ratched because as movie viewers we don’t see the whole lead up to this triumphant moment. The screenwriters did not do a good job with the whole smashing the glass to get cigarettes scene. It made it seem like Mcmurphy was smashing the glass to shut up Cheswick and to aide Nurse Ratched while in the book he does it to help the patients and to rebel against Nurse Ratched.
ReplyDeleteI think that watching the movie was a really good experience for our class, but only because we read the book. I feel like to truly get the experience out of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" as a whole, you should really be exposed to both of them. Kesey creates an extremely interestingly twisted plot, one that you cannot help but be immersed in. You feel attached to the characters, almost in a motherly way. I rooted for the guys whenever they rebelled against Nurse Ratched, and legitamately felt sad when Billy and Chezwick died. The book is one of those things that you think about when you're not reading it, one that makes you ask yourself the kind of things Kesey questions, like the impact of society on young minds. Although the movie did not provide an extremely accurate portrayal of the book as both Caroline and Meghan pointed out, it gave me alot more insight towards McMurphy, who I think is the most important character of both the book and movie. Jack Nicholson does an amazing job at fufulling every part of McMurphy's character; both charming and seemingly normal, but with small flickers of moments where we question his sanity. Overall, I enjoyed both, but I think to really understand Kesey's message, the book should be read.
ReplyDeleteEven though I missed an incredible deal of the movie because I was sick for two days, I saw enough of the film to form an opinion on its success. I do think that the movie did still succeed in being incredibly powerful because the triumph of the patients over Nurse Ratched was still conveyed, but the filmmakers still did not do the "Cuckoo's Nest"'s plot justice. Chief escaping wasn't such a major scene in the film, Nurse Ratched wasn't nearly as mean and evil as I perceived her in the novel, and McMurphy's motives seem warped. Caroline used the smashing of Nurse Ratched's window for cigarettes as supporting evidence of this. In the novel, McMurphy DID break the glass, but it was for the patients' morale, as well as shaking Nurse Ratched's. the movie made the entire scene seem like McMurphy just did it so Cheswick would be quiet; the movie's portrayal of the glass-breaking made it seem as if McMurphy was driven by personal gain, which was NOT the case. I think the gist of the novel and its storyline were captured by the filmmakers, but the subtle changes to the storyline really down-played the beauty of the ingenious storyline.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I really liked both the book and the movie. The movie was a little bit creepier than the book to me, but both were powerful. Answering the first question, I can definitely see why Kesey didn't like the direction of the movie. If I were Kesey, I would have definitely wanted to engage in the movie production of my own book, but I also would have been upset if they disrespected the most essential and important parts of the book, especially the parts that conveyed the message of the movie like Chief's point of view, his relationship with McMurphy, and Cheswicks suicide. Kesey had several points and a direction with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. He wanted the reader to understand a story about individuality versus conformity, becoming your own person, and sticking it to the man; the movie didn't really make a huge point about it. We see the final scene of Chief and the control panel and we are able to relate it back to the first time they tried to move it, but we don't really get the significance of it because of the lack of development in the relationship between McMurphy and Chief through out the movie.
ReplyDeleteDespite leaving out essential scenes from the book, I think the movie was still very good. It's realistic to cut certain scenes from the book, unless they wanted to film a five hour movie. However, I think they should've picked the scenes more carefully and really focused on Chief's point of view in the movie. We essentially get Kesey's message and thoughts through Chief in the book, which we don't get at all in the movie. I would have definitely left in Cheswick's scene, included the life guard and his term "guts ball," and I would've had the movie narrated by Chief.
I found the movie to have a lot more comical relief than the book, which I actually enjoyed. I found the book payed more attention to McMurphy's standing up for the other patients than the movie, and I found the message to have more depth in the book. Like Meghan, I prefer the book over the movie because of the more relatable point of view on Chief's part. Overall, I enjoyed both the book and the movie, and this was one of the best books we've read in class this year.
I agree with Megan that Kesey had sufficient reason to leave the movie set early. The movie was a complete different story than the book. With the book being narrorated by chief we get a deeper sense of the power of Nurse Ratched and what it is like to be in the ward. Many scenes also do not mean as much symbolically without the opinion and point of view of chief. An example of this was the ending scene in which chief escapes the hospital. In the movie it seems as if he flees becuase he has just killed Mcmurphy. Also, in the movie, Nurse Ratched and the hospital are not portrayed as negatively as in the book. Ratched seems as if she may actually care for the patients, and isn't just a power-hungry biatch, and the mental patients don't seem as distraught as in the book, for they laugh and aren't too afraid to stand up to ratched.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Meghan and the other opinions that Kesey had very good reason to leave the movie set early. The method the director used to portray some of the significant themes and symbolism of the book were in effective and resulted in the loss of major aspects that make this book great. Every movie made from a book has to be cut down and edited to make it screen worthy, but I think Kesey saw that the technique they were using was cutting away too much. They changed the perspective of the story, shifted the main character, and lost a lot of character development that otherwise played a large part in the intricate story line as well as making you care about the characters. Powerful scenes like Chiefs escape at the end loose all power and significance and I believe it was when Kesey saw this that he decided to leave. They changed too much about the book to truly capture the genius that went into writing it and I believe this frustrated Kesey. It was a great movie but it lost a lot from the book.
ReplyDeleteHere is Solia's entry:
ReplyDeleteI really did enjoy the movie adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. It managed to grasp some of the novel’s main themes, including, mental illness and challenging authority. The movie did however leave out many important narrations and scenes that I found to be critical to the understanding of the story. But, I can’t believe that Kesey’s film consultant quit without making a bigger effort to adapt the movie to fit the book better!
Leaving out scenes isn’t the main drawback to the movie. The main drawback is that the movie is based upon (like Meghan mentioned) the struggles of specific men in the ward, and not upon Chief’s heroic struggle to break free from his past and present mental state. Chief’s insightful opinions and insane (literally) accounts made for a more vivid and emotional story. Maybe the director of the movie could have filmed Chief’s facial reactions to certain events in the story, to give him a bigger role, and tie him into a closer relationship with McMurphy from the beginning?
The movie also portrays McMurphy as more of a hot-tempered man than he actually is. In the book, he makes dangerous, yet well thought out decisions that he believes will bring the men more power and happiness in the ward. In the movie his actions seem to be abrupt and done only out of spite for the Nurse.
Personally, I think that the director made a great movie, but in ways that are different from the book original message. One thing I would have added is a scene where some onlookers crowd by the gate of the hospital and act disgusted and taunting towards the patients. I think that a scene like this could bring the ideas of the “combine” and “cultural sickness” to the viewers attention, and make them wonder if the ill fate of the patients is their own fault or society’s fault.
Overall, there really were an enjoyable duo. The book was better, but the movie did have shining moments!
Here is Solia's entry:
ReplyDeleteI really did enjoy the movie adaptation of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. It managed to grasp some of the novel’s main themes, including, mental illness and challenging authority. The movie did however leave out many important narrations and scenes that I found to be critical to the understanding of the story. But, I can’t believe that Kesey’s film consultant quit without making a bigger effort to adapt the movie to fit the book better!
Leaving out scenes isn’t the main drawback to the movie. The main drawback is that the movie is based upon (like Meghan mentioned) the struggles of specific men in the ward, and not upon Chief’s heroic struggle to break free from his past and present mental state. Chief’s insightful opinions and insane (literally) accounts made for a more vivid and emotional story. Maybe the director of the movie could have filmed Chief’s facial reactions to certain events in the story, to give him a bigger role, and tie him into a closer relationship with McMurphy from the beginning?
The movie also portrays McMurphy as more of a hot-tempered man than he actually is. In the book, he makes dangerous, yet well thought out decisions that he believes will bring the men more power and happiness in the ward. In the movie his actions seem to be abrupt and done only out of spite for the Nurse.
Personally, I think that the director made a great movie, but in ways that are different from the book original message. One thing I would have added is a scene where some onlookers crowd by the gate of the hospital and act disgusted and taunting towards the patients. I think that a scene like this could bring the ideas of the “combine” and “cultural sickness” to the viewers attention, and make them wonder if the ill fate of the patients is their own fault or society’s fault.
Overall, there really were an enjoyable duo. The book was better, but the movie did have shining moments!
Though the director couldn't recreate every scene in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST. i still believe the movie is just as powerful as the book. Though the simple changes in plot that the two protraitures have could've been enough to get kesey to leave. The film is unbelievably well filmed and still has the same messages. The movie won an academy award. . . That being said, if it wasn't for the great cast of actors the movie could of definately flopped for not following Kesey's game plan. However i still believe the movie was just as affective and if not golden in a entertainers stand point.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't surprise me that Kesey left after two weeks. Its unfortunate that movies and books cant always be identical however in the case of OFOTCN I believe the director did a great job of making the story his own. By leaving out some important scenes from the novel and downgrading or removing certain rules the director was able to rearrange the story and scenes and change the focus. As for the symbols i dont blame the director for taking them out, I feel as though movies move to fast to have to many symbols. In the book the author is able to make you notice a symbol and Kesey does a good job of making sure everyone knows that these symbols exist by pointing them out numerous times. My point is in the book we read about cigarettes in situations where the men have little masculinity or when Mac takes back their masculinity from the nurse, In the movie the men would just loose their masculinity and cigarettes would be in the scene but nothing draws your attention to them. over all i would say that the themes in the movie and book are fairly similar however the movies delivery of the theme is a lot weaker then Kesey's.
ReplyDelete