Has anyone read the book and watched the movie?

[I.]

They are mutually reinforcing and a great example of when Hollywood gets it right!
In homage I wrote "One Flew Over the Co-op Board" in my first book.
...and who doesn't love Jack.

[C. J.]

One thing that was a downer to me in the movie's department though was its message. In the book it explores many themes of society and even has an analogy about a chicken in a coop getting a wound and everything around it killing it.

The movie seemed to have no real examples of any of that and was vague. I felt that way anyway. It only presented "What, everyone here is voluntary?" but then didn't provide any real overall themes exploring anything of that theme.

Does anyone even slightly agree with me on that?

[Monty J]

CJ wrote: "It only presented "What, everyone here is voluntary?" but then didn't provide any real overall themes exploring anything of that theme.

Does anyone even slightly agree with me on that?"

Film is a radically different medium from a novel.

It will invariably be frustrating to compare a movie with a novel, because film, like theater, is a visual medium with strict time limitations, typically 90 to 120 minutes. A feature film also costs a thousand times more than a novel to create and market.

By comparison, a novel has virtually unlimited time to get a point across (and some drone on seemingly forever.)

For Cuckoo the film to have covered the book would have been twice as long, or it would have a condensed Readers' Digest feel (and would never get produced.)

There's also a right brain/left brain aspect. Visual media are processed more heavily on the right side. Text, being linear, appeals more to the left side.

Cuckoo had ten years of refinement as a theater production before it became a film, which is one of the many reasons it was so successful, while some of us who appreciate the novel feel let down.

We just have to let go of the idea that a film will live up to the expectations set by a novel. There's no "better than" or "worse than," because it's unfair to compare two such radically different media.

People may like one better than the other, but it's tricky to compare them.

[Deborah]

I saw the film when it was first on UK release. It was definitely the big film that year and excellent. However when I read the book later it was a revelation to discover that the chief inhabited a completely delusional & distorted reality. In the film it seemed he may have been banged up for no particular reason; and that was not a far fetched idea back then.

[Mark]

I thought the book more powerful than the movie. When I read the book, I envisaged Marlon Brando as McMurphy. I was disappointed in Jack Nicholson as the book conveys a big physical presence for McMurphy. I wish I'd seen the movie first as it is excellent but as I say a bit of a let-down after the book. The book had a big impact on me & it would be interesting to read it again

[Papaphilly]

CJ wrote: "One thing that was a downer to me in the movie's department though was its message. In the book it explores many themes of society and even has an analogy about a chicken in a coop getting a wound ..."

I tend to see it a bit differently. You are right that the book sees it very different than the movie, but that happens all of the time. Much of the time a director has to make cuts to fit the movie into the allowed time frame and stay somewhat true to the book or the director wants to explore an aspect of the book and focus on that. The latter is what I think happened here. If memory serves me, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nestwas published in 1962 and the movie in 1975. A turbulent period ensued between the two. I see the film more as one man rebelling against the system only to find the system grinding him up. Murphy represents American mentalities after Vietnam and Watergate. The country was both exhausted and paranoid about the governement and the movie speaks to this idea, not so much the book.

This is probably what the director wanted to focus on instead of the larger issue of society as the book studied. The movie is still pretty faithful to the book, but the focus is a bit different. they are both excellent at what they did.

[C. J.]

All I was trying to say was, if the movie was trying to have the same message, I couldn't tell what it was. I had trouble seeing what the film was trying to put across than themes of freedom and as one critic said some kind of triumph of the human spirit.

I just thought when I first saw it a well-produced movie that took place at a cruel mental hospital.

[Monty J]

CJ wrote: "All I was trying to say was, if the movie was trying to have the same message, I couldn't tell what it was. I had trouble seeing what the film was trying to put across than themes of freedom and as..."

I don't think the movie even tried to reproduce the book. Author Ken Kesey was really upset at first. He didn't like Nicholson as McMurphy and wanted Chief as the POV narrator. Eventually he grew to accept it as the film got so many awards and became so popular. Anything he said against it would sound like carping.

For ten years, Kirk Douglas played McMurphy on Broadway. He owned the theater/film rights and called the shots on how the script got shaped. When Kirk got to old to play McMurphy, the film was co-produced by his son, Michael and Saul Zaentz (Cuckoo, The English Patient, Amadeus) and directed by Milos Foreman (Amadeus).

The film's pedigree was stellar from day one. You focus that much brilliance on one project and galaxies begin genuflecting. What could a newbie like Kesey do except salute the cine-gods writing him checks?

(Wait, I think I already said all this somewhere up above.)

[Larry]

Quick aside: Ken Kesey always thought that Cuckoo's Nest was his popular book, but that Sometimes A Great Notion was his great book (his words). If anyone saw the unbelievably awful movie based on Notion, you could see how the author might throw up his hands in disgust and any adaptation.

[Monty J]

Larry wrote: "Quick aside: Ken Kesey always thought that Cuckoo's Nest was his popular book, but that Sometimes A Great Notion was his great book (his words). If anyone saw the unbelievably awful movie based on ..."

Agreed. Something went wrong with SAGN as a film and Paul Newman had to step in as Director, his directorial debu. Even a stellar cast (Newman, Henry Fonda at the top) couldn't make it work. Today you can't even buy a copy because of some rights controversy. There are clips on Youtube though.

[Joe]

Read the book and saw the movie - enjoyed both. However, like A Clockwork Orange, reading and seeing each once was enough.

[Shakeel]

I had seen movie twice..movie is brilliant.butt i am dying to read book that is not available in our area. Don't know what to do.

[Renee E]

Have you got an e-reader, Shakeel? It may be available that way, through download.

[Papaphilly]

Shakeel wrote: "I had seen movie twice..movie is brilliant.butt i am dying to read book that is not available in our area. Don't know what to do."

Get the book from an E-retailer like Amazon.