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 can easily see why Kesey decided to leave the film. His novel is full of symbolism, metaphors, themes, ect, most of which are not included in the movie. It is apparent in the novel that Kesey had a clear point that he wanted to make about society. [That the controlling factors of the ‘combine’ or society place a heavy-weight of expectation and works like a ‘machine’ in order take away individuality.] A major factor that helped Kesey portray his main point was seeing the story through Chief’s eyes. As soon as the screenwriters and filmmakers decided not to have the movie presented through Chief’s perspective it lost a lot of what Kesey wanted to convey. I can easily imagine how Kesey might have been upset and left the movie. Hoverer, I do think the filmmakers did an excellent job at creating the movie. I don’t think that it would have been as good if there were a voice over. I think that they did a good job editing, considering the perspective that the chose.
ReplyDeleteIn the great words of Mr. Taylor, “it was a film and not a movie.” The film actually contains almost all the scenes necessary to complement the book. The problem lies in how the scenes were presented. I found most scenes in the film to be angered reactions rather than symbolic gestures. For example, McMurphey shatters the glass in the film simply to appease Cheswick rather than to demonstrate confrontational nature towards the combine. Also, the film was purely 3rd person and lacked the personal viewpoint found in the book. From this far off perspective, the film lacks the inside scoop into the emotions experienced by the characters. The sense of magical realism was entirely lost entirely.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I found the film to only lack one scene: Chief looking out the window. This scene established Chief’s desire to be strong and full sized again. Had this scene been included, we would be exposed to Chief a little more than simply during one basketball game, thus giving the viewer a bit more insight into the motivations behind Chief’s grand escape.
My last critique of the movie lies in Billy’s role. I felt that he talked far longer than he should have. The stutter was poor and he elongated simple sentences into 2-3 minute orations. I was dying on the inside during his speeches. Why not let Chief talk a little more and Billy talk a little less? It’s much cooler to have a huge Native American speak wisdom than listen to a stutter.
I completely agree with what Jenna said about the editing and Chief’s perspective. Also, if I were Kesey, I would have been pretty pissed about the film’s direction too but I’m sure that the movie was a bigger success as a comedy than it would have been if it had included all the depressing combine/conformity themes from the book. If the movie followed the plot of the book more closely (including things like Cheswick’s suicide), the movie may have been a little too complex and dramatic for a general audience.
ReplyDeleteThere are only a few things that disappointed me about the movie. First, I wish that Chief had a larger role in the story because his transformation in the book was one of the central story lines. Second, I would have liked Nurse Ratched to seem a little more power crazed, because in the movie, I thought she seemed fairly normal. Lastly, as Tony mentioned, McMurphy was not really presented as a martyr figure but more like a mental patient with anger management issues, which takes away from the original meaning of the story. However, had I not read the book first, I would have thought that the movie was perfect how it was, so I would not say that these are “tactical mistakes” that ruined the movie or anything like that. And I agree with Tony about Billy’s stutter, that was just painful to listen to.
We talked in class about how a voice over wouldn't have worked, mainly because voice overs are typically lame. Well, I've been thinking about it and I think that a strange sort of voice over could have worked in some way. I think that it is too hard to show, especially with chief, mental battles without hearing from the person experiencing them. McMurphy does nearly all the talking in this film (got you tony) and he is a pretty open book just because of the sheer volume of his speech. But chief is in many ways the product of McMurphy's efforts and to not fully see his psychological transformation is kind of a bummer. So with the voice over thing I think, though I know it is not in the book, a sort of diary entry format could have helped chief's character progress and let the viewer know about it. If I had not read the book the end would have been some strange outburst from arguably the strangest character. With a little deeper characterization, maybe a flashback or two, of chief he would have meant more as a character.
ReplyDeleteI also think that by getting deeper into chief the whole combine deal could have come out more. When McMurphy is such a force in the film and he doesn't even understand the major theme of the novel it sets the purpose of the book aside. With chief involved you get more of the spirit of the novel. Most importantly the actor that plays chief is an absolute gem, and he needs to be utilized further. That is my main critique as far as seen exclusion, which I understand must happen. But honestly that basketball scene was plenty long enough to be switched with a chief flashback or the shower scene, or a bunch of different things.
And finally I can totally understand why Kesey left the film. I'd imagine that this sort of thing happens often with book to movie productions. Authors will never be completely happy with a movie because it can never get across everything they want to say. Some themes have to stay and some have to go. I'd imagine that Kesey left because the combine theme disappeared, and that was really his baby. While McMurphy's leadership role was emphasized what Kesey wanted to say fell to the wayside. I see this film as more of a statement that the director made using the world that Kesey created, kind of low if you ask me.
If I were Kesey I would have left the set too. I see the movie and the book as two completely different things. If I were Kesey I would have made the movie more about society as a whole, and I would have kept in the themes about expressing sexuality, because sexuality is a huge part of our society. I would also have wanted the film directors to cut out some of the funny moments in the movie simply because it might make the movie too light hearted. My goal as Kesey would be to have the movie be like a weight on people’s shoulders, where the audience is very clear about the fact that our flawed society made the people in the ward the way they are. However, as Kesey, I would be very happy with the fact that Jack Nicholson was playing Mcmurphy’s character. I would be happy because Jack Nicholson seems to be so good in every role that involves his character being just a tiny bit crazy. (Or, in The Shining, very crazy)
ReplyDeleteI can definitely see why Kesey didn’t want to be a part of the production of the movie. The book and the movie are incredibly different that in comparison, the movie seems like a nock-off of the book; you see an overall correspondence, but at a closer look the two might as well have been coincidentally alike. I’m sure Kesey just felt that it wasn’t his work anymore, so why bother trying to make it that way.
ReplyDeleteSo even with the significant difference, for some reason the movie is still just as enjoyable. I can’t quite figure it out for myself because in my opinion, so many crucial scenes, themes, and perspectives are left out. I guess the movie is just entertaining, but as far as staying true to Kesey’s message, it falls short. Very short. I understand that there is a huge editing process involved in condensing the plot, but I feel the producers did a horrible job in picking which to include and which to exclude, and I wish they hadn’t included the few scenes that they made up for the movie. When I see a movie that’s based on a book, I want to see it as close to the book as possible. Needless to say, I’ve yet to find myself satisfied by a novel based movie.
As far as missing scenes, I think the boxer scene at the beginning of the book, the shower scene, the correct fishing scene and any other big scenes where McMurphy challenges Nurse Ratched directly, should have been included. I felt that the McMurphy in the movie wasn’t as bold and dead-set on undermining Nurse Ratched as he is in the book. He seemed more like he was an unhappy inmate and wanted things changed for himself rather than the man in the book who stood up for what was just for all the men. And then obviously, Chief was not the narrator in the movie, giving it a completely different feel. What I didn’t like was that Chief was hardly a character in the movie at all. We saw that the movie was mostly about McMurphy as the book isn’t. It might have been a little strange to have a narrator in the movie, but maybe it could have worked.
I can completely understand why Kesey left the movie. If I had written an incredible, best-selling novel that was being turned into a less than incredible movie (compared to the book), then I would have walked out too. I didn't really like the direction it went because although the movie is funny, I thought the plot to be much more serious. But maybe I think that because I was first given the story through Chief Bromden's perspective. I understand that in a movie, it would be difficult and awkward to have voice-overs and the point of view of one person, but I think that gave the reader of the book the feeling of actually being a part of the ward because they were listening to and observing the inner workings of every patient.
ReplyDeleteI liked the movie as a whole and understand that all of the book would have to be cut down to a 2 hour movie. However, I think they screenwriters and producers should have made McMurphy more of a "savior" instead of just another patient. I wish the movie included more scenes in which McMurphy was provoking Nurse Ratched or being rebellious, because then it would have made the ending of him attempting to strangle her more understandable and less of a rash decision and more like his last resort (or so he feels.)
I don't think that the screenwriters should have attempted to include Kesey's opinion about society. I think this because it just wouldn't really work well in the movie unless they were willing to change the entire thing to fit the author's ideas. Also, I think that since it was such a good movie, especially to someone who has not read the book, it might convince the viewer to read the book, which I think is an even better message. This is better because then the viewer becomes the reader, and then can understand Kesey's ideas about society through his celebrated novel.
I believe that if the director had made the movie to follow the themes of the book more, then it would have been a completely different film and most likely, less successful. Books are made to make you think, movies are made to entertain you. The true cuckoos nest as a movie would have been an art film that was six hours long. If a director wanted to capture the essence of the fog or have chiefs twisted mind narrating the entire film, then it would have been most likely extremely confusing and relatively boring at parts. This movie was made to entertain, not to teach lessons and make people think about how society is treating its outlyers. If we are discussing the fact of whether this movie portrays the book accurately, I would have to say no. The director seems to take the general plot and characters and then just run with it. I can definitely understand why kesey did not stay on and help with the film. It was almost like he was being ripped off. The film was not even close to portraying the message that kesey tried to get out to the public. Although some major scenes were missing or out of order, the general point was there. That these men needed help and McMurphy gave it to them. Though McMurphy does not come across as much of a Martyr in the film as in the book, it is still a great movie, but is not comparable to the novel.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Kesey’s choice to leave the movie. The movie was very different from his award winning book because it was not from Chief’s point of view. I think the movie would have been better if it was from Chief’s point of view although I admit that it would have made the movie a bit weird if there was a voiceover. Because it was not told from Chief’s point of view we missed out on Chief getting stronger with Mcmurphy’s help. In the movie, Chief kind of started talking at a random point and it was comedic. In the book, we see the things that lead up to him talking for the first time and it makes sense. In the movie, Chief randomly emerges as a hero when he helps Mcmurphy in his fight against the aides. He doesn’t talk until after this scene in the movie. Also, in the movie, Chief did not come along on the fishing trip. By leaving him out of the trip, we missed out on the Christ reference from the book that showed Chief cutting his hand. This scene in the book showed that Chief was starting to take over Mcmurphy’s role as the leader of the ward.
ReplyDeleteThe movie also left out the scene where Chief got out of bed at night to look out the window. This scene was a very important scene in the book. But for the most part, the movie showed the important scenes from the book even though several of them were compacted into just a couple scenes. I liked the fishing scene in the book better and it wouldn’t have taken much more time to add this scene instead of the fishing scene they used in the movie. In the fishing scene in the book, Mcmurphy left the men alone and let them be independent. This was very important as he was helping the men to be able to stand on their own, without his help. In the movie, he was right in the middle of the fishing and he did not let the men do it by themselves.
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? Yes! If I were Kesey I would leave too. The movie tries to condense the powerful themes of the book into 2 hours. I don’t think Kesey agreed with some of the choices and changes the director made to his book. A lot of important scenes are muddled into one, the point of view is completely different and it probably didn’t feel like his story anymore.
ReplyDelete2) 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? I think they did the fishing scene completely wrong. Even if they had to cut some scenes and shorten some, the themes and meaning of each scene from the book should be the same for the movie. The fishing trip was kind of the starting point for Mac and his crew while in the book it was Chiefs emersion from the fog. I also believe that they should have kept Chief as the narrator and should have filmed the movie from his perspective. It would have made it a lot easier for the themes to be understood. Also, I felt Chief is insignificant during the beginning of the movie then becomes the main character in some way towards the end. So it’s kind of random and I am not a fan.
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. Well maybe they could have just focused on Chief more? I am not exactly sure but I didn’t feel as though Chief’s thoughts about the Combine vs the Individual were clearly expressed in the movie. Also Harding’s character was almost not even there, where in the book he is a huge part to the demonstration of struggle against the combine.