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.
I was actually about to mention in class how I can see why Kesey disliked the movie, similar to question 1. Because we know the story in the book, in all its glory, we can all see that the movie is really its own story. The movie strayed far away from the complex deeper meanings and symbolism in the novel. This could be attributed to a variety of reasons, but if you think about it, there is no way that the movie could have possibly covered the book in its entirety. The movie deals with rebellion and individuality which are also main themes in the book, but strays away from the offshoots of those 2 ideas. Kesey would want his story appreciated in full, not in the bits and pieces that the movie chooses to show. Similar to Matt's thoughts today, I think that the movie did a good job interpreting the novel in its own way and incorporating as much as it could handle. It doesn't do the novel justice in its complexity and depth, but the movie excels in the avenues it chose to pursue.
ReplyDeleteI think that this book is so full of symbolism and deeper meaning relating to Kesey's social commentary on gender relations, conformity, and mental institutions. I agree with Patrick, that I think that the movie is funny and well done but lacks the deeper meaning that, in my opinion, made the book exceptional. I also think that if the movie was not going to have the symbolism and the themes like the book, the filmmakers shouldn't have put in some of the scenes were out of context so completely random, ie the breaking of the glass, some of the cigarettes scenes, and chocking Nurse Ratchet at the end. To make Kesey's larger message about society included in the film, I think that McMurphy's character would need to be changed. In the movie, he actually seems crazy and his motivations are self centered and he just seems to want to have fun. If his motivations were clearly shown as self sacrificing for the patients and he was trying to teach help and teach the patients, the some of the themes would be clearer. Also, if his character is connected somehow to Jesus Christ, his stories goes from being a cautionary tale to being a martyr, an important part of the book. The way the movie ends, nothing has changed and the ward is back to the beginning scene. I think because of the end scene and the fact that you are not very attached to Chief so his breaking out isn't as important, the movie is more cynical than the book. Nothing has changed and there is no hope for Harding or Cheswick or Taber.
ReplyDelete-Ciaran
Wow, 8:30 Wednesday night and I'm the third to comment. Guess I'm not as late as I thought. All-righty. While Patrick and Ciaran make valid points about the movie being its own entity from the book in terms of meaning, I myself am a purist when it comes to movie adaptations of books. Yes, Chief having a constant voice-over would be odd, yes some of the fog scenes would make little sense and, as Matt so eloquently stated in class today, the moon and dog scene would make no sense. All right, fine. But, there's no reason this movie could not be told in the third person point of view it has and still have those overarching themes Kesey portrayed in the book be present here. To me, it all starts with the tweaking of the characters. Make Nurse Ratched more of the way I think Patrick said in the way that she is so sweet, you know she's being malicious. Make the other Acutes seem less crazy then they are. Add some more structure such as the World Series sit-in (I missed a day, so if this is in the movie, my bad), the real fishing trip scene, the shower scene, and so on. Make McMurphy be the martyr he is in the book. Maybe even do some additions that show that the outside world is reflected of the 'Combine-esque' ward. Then, the movie will take shape the same way the book does. These mashed- up scenes like the fight scene before the ECT is just odd. McMurphy is not seen as hero for choking out Nurse Ratched. Chief is just weird and awkward as he runs away. Adding things like that, to make the movie more similar, would do wonders when it comes to making the movie more true to the book. I remember walking out of class both today and on Monday thinking, 'I know I am supposed to feel for these characters, but I just don't', and now I know why. As has been said, the movie is its own being altogether. I just wish it wasn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evan that it would be interesting to see a movie that followed the Kesey’s plot exactly, however, the makings of a good book are not the same as that of a good movie. While symbolism and culturally significant themes make reading interesting, film is a medium better suited for fast paced action, conflict. How many times have you analyzed subplots and motifs after going to the theater? It makes sense from a filmmaker’s perspective to remove the symbolism and condense the action, while it might not please a Kesey fan. In addition, there a big difference between Kesey’s goals while writing the book and the filmmaker’s goals for the movie. Kesey wrote the novel to comment on society, while the production team for the movie was focused on selling tickets at the movies or more broadly, making money. Therefore I am not surprised that they removed some controversial material like Cheswick’s suicide or the sexist to broaden their audience or removed the symbolism. I think the various changes to the book reflect the difference between the movie making and book writing process. While authors are free to follow their artistic instinct before selling their work to a publisher to market it, a movie is subject to the wants of a production company during the entire production process
ReplyDeleteI Will start by saying that I enjoyed the movie more than I enjoyed the book. Neither the book nor the movie was a very accurate representation of mental institutions. Most insane people are actually insane. For me at times the book kind of dragged on. This sort of discussion of how true a movie is to a book comes up all the time and the one thing people always seem to forget is that the movies are not made to be true to the book, they are made to sell tickets. I personally believe that the best series of movies ever made is the James Bond series from the beginning through Roger Moore but, the Ian Flemming novels are quite different than the films. For example take the well known classic Goldfinger. As most people know, Bond seduces Pussy Galore and gets her to fake the nerve gas bombings. In the book Goldfinger, Pussy Galore is a raging lesbian and her Flying Circus is her herum of other lesbians. Needless to say Bond is unsuccessful at obtaining her aid in the novel. Today, few people care about the novel but everyone knows the movie. People such as Ciaran tend to forget that the average layman does not read a novel like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for complex and meaningful symbolism, he reads it to pass the time and gain a medium for conversation. How can one whine about symbolism being lost in a movie that was so successful. The producers are laughing all the way to the bank. The people who have the means to fork over the kind of change it takes to make a large scale are not interested in making donations. They are going to make damn sure they are going to get a decent return on their risk. They don't give a damn if its true to the story as long as it brings the pay home.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I am unknown. Symbolic? -Stephen Armstrong
ReplyDeleteSo I think I made it quite clear in class that I feel that the book and the movie cannot be looked at as the same story. The movie certainly does lack most of the thematic and symbolic elements that made the book so great. I think for the most part, we all seem to agree on that. What I absolutely disagree with is the idea that this was done because movies are only made to sell tickets, that there is no room in them for symbolism and theme, and that this movie was purely meant to entertain with no deeper meaning. I know that these blog entries are a place for open-mindedness and discussion, but all of these statements are 100% wrong. To say that the sole purpose of movies is to sell tickets is to focus on only one facet of the industry, and completely discredits an entire, completely legitimate artistic medium. I also disagree with the idea that this movie has no meaning to it, and that it is meant purely as a funny and entertaining film. Personally, I do not the like the direction in which Milos Foreman pushed the movie, and from what I understand, Jack Nicholson didn't either. However, I absolutely appreciate this movie as an excellent, character-driven film that comments more on the social conflicts of the 1970's than it does many of Kesey's original themes; perhaps a testament to the idea that Kesey's themes are, themselves, timeless. A perfect example of a way in which the movie blatantly attempts to address different themes than the movie, and not in a hidden way either, is the fact that Chief lifts not a control panel, but rather some sort of hydrotherapy console. In the book, this scene symbolizes Chief breaking free from the control of the combine and ward, hence him throwing a control panel. In the movie however, he is instead freeing trapped water, while at the same time freeing himself. Water is traditionally a symbol of change and rebirth, and as such, it lends the scene a tone of revival for the Chief, who, unlike in the book, is meant to be shown as a slightly more "cagey" fellow in the movie. There are countless other examples of thematic moments that I enjoy in this movie, in addition to the hilarious gags and characters, but in the interest of time, and to go along with the popular trend, I will now move on to what I didn't like about the movie. I agree with Ciaran that some scenes were thrown in without the proper amount of context to make them significant. While I have repeatedly agreed with the director's decision to cut out many of the books themes and plot lines entirely, the one theme I would have liked the movie to elaborate on further is the idea of McMurphy being a leader, teacher, and eventually, martyr to and for the patients. For example, I think that the glass-breaking scenes should have been kept in tact, as should Cheswick's suicide (because wanting to make money is a ridiculous reason to leave something like this out), and so should the entirety of McMurphy's attempts to annoy Nurse Ratched. Similarly, I think the transition between McMurphy causing trouble, to conforming, to causing trouble again should have been brought much more into focus. Following along with the movie's tactic of making McMurphy the absolute lead character, it would make sense to follow the complete arch of his personal motivation in the story. Again, there are a few more places in which I think Milos Foreman (who did NOT deserve the oscar in my opinion) could have changed the plot to tell a better story, and once again, I will skip them as I do not want to be here all night. As I have said before, I am still a huge fan of this movie, both for its entertainment value and the superb acting, as well as for the THEMATIC CONTENT AND MESSAGE. Thank you all for your time.
ReplyDeleteHere is David's response:
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that everyone here feels that reading the book is a more rewarding experience than watching the movie, because of its depth and extended metaphors. However, watching the movie is not as much of a waste of time as Evan would have us believe. This film is widely appreciated as one of the best of all time, it does an extremely good job of picking and depicting the best scenes from the book. It would have been impossible to make it more like the book without making it extremely long or confusing. Much of the novel that wasn't in the movie were Chief's interior monologues or observations. Most of the time, they were extremely weird or unreliable at the very least. Most of the story's themes and metaphors are only revealed in Chief's thought, so it would be impossible to convey them to the viewer without voiceovers. On the whole, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's nest is too complex a novel to be made into a movie as accurately as we would have hoped. But the movie does its job: it tells the story in an interesting and artistic way, leaving almost everyone satisfied. People who don't have time to read the book can still understand the main themes as well as the story. If nothing else, it is a great showcase of Jack Nicholson's talent, although personally I liked him better in Chinatown.
Sorry to "go after Evan", but I feel like the movie was not a waste of time. There are several quite humorous aspects of the movie that Ciaran, Mr. Harrington and I all enjoyed greatly, along with almost everyone else in our class. I admit that I was a little upset with how the movie veered away from the main plots of the book. For example leaving Cheswick in the movie the whole time, in my opinon makign Cheswicks character at the end of the movie kind of drag out. Although towards the end of the movie his character kind of drags out, but the film makers did bring Cheswick's back into the "spotlight" of significance by having the "I want my cigarettes Scene" and Cheswick getting Electroshock. I understand why the film makers did not have the movie in Chief's view, but I wish that they left the significant jesus symbols in the movie, at least... Lastly the movie does leave out the parts of the book that give the book, "guts" and "gumph". WHich make it such an amazing novel.
ReplyDeleteBut, "going against Evan", with the book having such high standards it would be (and was) very hard for the movie to live up to it the movie's standards.
As Maddie also discusses, I too think that the movie left out some of the most known symbols in the book... But then again, movies don't have to be strictly just like the book, they can be adaptations. Kesey did a great job by writing a book full of complex observances of society, but he didn't leave the set of the movie because it was bad. He left it because he didn't see the movie heading in the direction that he wanted it too, and thus felt like it was cutting the book short. Just as any of us wouldn't agree with somebody cutting our own work short, or even changing it, I see why he would leave the set. But this does not deter from the fact that the book is quite significant ( in its own way). As Matt also discussed, the movie brings up themes of its own. These are also deep and meaningful, but are simply just different symbols to delve into than the book. Anyways... I also agree with Matt's statement that the movie industry isn't just out to "make money". Just because the movie had a different way of portraying the storyline does not mean that it was only made to make money. As I said before, everyone is free to have their own adaptation of the novel, and it is not really fair to say that the movie is not deep or any of that. Perhaps the director of the movie, found different meanings than our english class, and made those the most important in the movie. All (16?) of us might feel like one particular scene is THE most important scene and "should not have been left out", but until we make a movie we should delve into the symbols that the movie touches on. -__-
ReplyDeleteIt is very believable that Kesey was frustrated with the scenes of the movie and the direction the film was headed. Mainly because some of the most significant parts in the novel are not portrayed in the film. For example, in the movie there is no clear explanation for McMurphy choking and attacking Nurse Ratched which makes him look like he's just completely insane. The viewers that didn't read the novel might have been completely clueless to McMurphys behavior because they don't know the causes prior. Another significant difference was in the novel, Chief was the narrator and begins with the fog to show how it ties in with the big themes but in the movie, none of this is shown. The fog was the key to show McMurphy helped heal Chief but it didn't give us that idea in the movie. It is definitely not a movie where you feel like you know every next event because you read the book. In this movie, I was clueless to what the next action was going to be. Its clear that a lot of scenes from the movie didn't follow the book at all and some key parts of the novel were not included so it is very understandable that Kesey was insanely frustrated.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, I would like to thank Matt and Mr. H for warning the class that the movie and the book were entirely different. Had we been unaware of this, I believe the class would be less focused on enjoying the movie itself and instead be more critical of the numerous discrepancies between it and the novel. Thus, detracting from the point that Forman was able to get across through his own artistic interpretation of Kesey's story. In the movie, Randall McMurphy does not have such a huge impact on the lives of the men in the ward, instead of changing them from rabbits to men, they seem to stay the same. Forman's omittal of Cheswick's underwater suicide, Taber as a cautionary tale, Nurse Ratched's disrobing, the mental fog, and Chief's disturbing mechancial dream allowed the viewer to focus their attention on the other possible motivation behind McMurphy's actions. Maybe, McMurphy really is just crazy and self-centered, without any real concern for the other patients in the ward except as (occassionally) willing participants in his distractions (gambling, the fishing trip, etc.) to combat his boredom at the monotony of ward life. This would have upset Kesey greatly, judging by the numerous accounts of symbolism that force the reader to consider McMurphy as a Jesus-like figure to the other men on the ward.
ReplyDelete