One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
discussion
Has anyone read the book and watched the movie?
message 1:
by
Jennifer
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jun 02, 2014 07:11AM
How did the movie compare to the book?
reply
|
flag
The movie is excellent but there is nothing like reading the book, imho, to get the full depth and pathos of this tragic tale.
I attend a movie/film book club at the library and this was our selection 3 months ago. I had seen and read the book ages ago, but tried to read first this time withOUT picturing the actors from the movie. It's an excellent movie and an equally excellent book but our club almost unanimously agreed that they are very different stories and you can enjoy both by seeing them as such.
I read the book and loved it. I did not see the movie, but I saw a performance on stage, which I found heavy and depressing. Not sure why I had such different reactions.
I just finished reading the book, which I loved! I didn't think that a movie could possibly do it justice. I was curious and watched the trailor and I agree with Kandice (but not having watched the movie), it seems like a different story. I will definitely check it out though.
I read the book before I watched the Milos Forman movie. I like the imagery of the book because the story is told from the perspective of Chief Broom, who is obviously mental, so the perfect unreliable narrator.However, the movie is incredibly well-acted and the story of how it came into being (for instance, it's filmed in a real mental hospital, with mental patients as extras) is worth the price of the special edition DVD.
The only drawback is that after watching the movie you cannot 'unsee' Jack Nicholson as Randall McMurphy or Brad Dourif as Billy Bibbitt.
As both are excellent, but different because of the limitations of the different expressions, I'm glad I don't have to choose between the book or the film.
In college, a million years ago, I took a course and we were required to read the book (first) and then watch the movie. In my mind it is the only movie to do justice to a book. My memory is that the movie was true to the book and that is why it had such high marks in my mind. I thought the casting was excellent and the actors were really embodied the characters. Nurse Krachett, the Nicholson character, and the Indian. It's been too long and I can't remember the character's names. In general I always think it is best to read a book FIRST. Allow the author to create the images for you, not Hollywood.
The book is fantastic, read it a long time ago, but is a book that sticks with you.I liked the movie, but you know how movies are...they leave things out or merge one character into another.
But all in all both book and movie are excellent.
I really enjoyed both. However, I liked the narration better in the book coming from the eyes of "Chief" the big indian. In the movie, I liked the way they represented "Murphy" better and Jack Nicholson was great. Not much like the book character who was a muscle bound red headed irishman.
Years ago in college I had to read the book and then saw the movie. Enjoyed both.
I read the book in HS, then saw the film much later. Both are excellent.
I've only read the book but I would really like to see the film!
Read the book, watched the film, met the author. All were magnificent experiences.
"Janet wrote: "I read the book and loved it. I did not see the movie, but I saw a performance on stage, which I found heavy and depressing. Not sure why I had such different reactions.""Try seeing the movie. I can see how a stage version could be depressing because of some of the limitations with sets and lighting. Also, Jack Nicholson was great and Nurse Ratchett was just so mean and easy to hate! I loved the book and the movie.
The movie was actually very true to the book, and the soundtrack is a work of art. All the actors are perfect for their parts--Jack Nicholson's McMurphy, oh my God, I cannot even describe how fantastic he was. . . and Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched was so, so amazing . . . so yeah, even coming from me (I'm one of those people who hates any movie based on her favorite book), the movie was great. Not as good as the book, obviously, but still really good!
Martyn (a.k.a. M'sieur Sang Froid) wrote: "I read the book before I watched the Milos Forman movie. I like the imagery of the book because the story is told from the perspective of Chief Broom, who is obviously mental, so the perfect unreli..."While I will agree that I absolutely could not unsee Dourif or DeVito, I pictured Mac as William Sadler. Look and let me know what you think.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0006669/
Kandice wrote: "William Sadler as Mac."I've seen a few movies with Sadler, he's a great actor. Still, McMurphy was one of those defining roles for Nicholson and he is a great maniac. I think the casting director did an excellent job on the Forman film, and not just in the main roles. Dourif as Bibbitt was a revelation (I think it was his first movie?), but there were many actors cast in unexpected roles.
I saw an interview with Louise Fletcher recently, and she was so convincing as Nurse Ratched that she even had some backlash in public life where some people thought Fletcher, who is a sweet and gentle lady, was actually playing herself when she was playing Ratched. I think Nurse Ratched is actually in the Top Ten of all-time greatest movie villains.
I think that happens to other actors as well. Gary Oldman was described by an actress who worked with him as this really sweet sensitive guy that you just want to hug and protect against the hostile world, which sounds incongruous with his many antagonistic movie roles.
I have seen the movie before I read the book, and I can say the movie is pretty close to the book as well. It is pretty hard, though, after watching the movie, to not picture Jack Nicholson's face when I read about McMurphy, Nurse Ratched's face of Louise Fletcher, and the Indian.
Jennifer wrote: "How did the movie compare to the book?"The major difference is that the book is narrated by Chief Bromden, from his point of view, wheres the film is from McMurphy's point of view.
Also, The Combine is never mentioned in the film, but was a major point in the book.
I think that happens to other actors as well. Gary Oldman was described by an actress who worked with him as this really sweet sensitive guy that you just want to hug and protect against the hostile world, which sounds incongruous with his many antagonistic movie roles.You should see him as Dimmesdale in The Scarlet Letter. He was so sweet, charming and simply wonderful that it was hard to believe the same actor had played so many hardasses.
Monty J, I have to say the scenes in the book describing the combine and the fog were my least favorites. I like Bromden as the narrator and it certainly changes the focus seeing things through his eyes, I just could have done without those scenes.
Kandice wrote: "I just could have done without those scenes."I think the people who made the film felt the same way. It feels preachy.
The book and the movie are two separate things in my opinion. They're both great, I just think the movie doesnt get as in depth as the book. Also I read somewhere that the author of the book Ken Kesey was pissed as all hell when he saw the final product for the movie. Didnt like it. I can see where he's coming from because they are so different but ill stick to my opinion that they are both awesome. Ive read the book multiple times and watch the movie whenever its on tv.
Monty J wrote: "The major difference is that the book is narrated by Chief Bromden, from his point of view, wheres the film is from McMurphy's point of view."The movie is not from McMurphy's viewpoint, but rather, like with most movies, looking objectively at what happens. There are a few scenes without McMurphy present (which wouldn't have been there if the movie was from his viewpoint).
Chief Broom was an excellent unreliable narrator in the book. The Combine and fog scenes serve to point out just how delusional he really is, and his assessment of what happens between Nurse Ratched and McMurphy is much more subjective. In that sense the movie doesn't require as much thinking and our bias (pro-Mac, anti-Ratched) isn't left to our own opinion or moral stances.
Years ago I read a magazine article were a movie producer was being interviewed about the many differences between a movie version adapted by a book and the one comment that always stuck with me was that a movie is an adaptation of a book not a retelling. I think the movie version of this book perfectly illustrates this point. If the studio decided to retell this story as written it would be too distracting to the viewer mechanics of the combine throbbing behind the nurses station and the delusional/paranoid viewpoint of the Chief. Instead the movie focuses on the McMurphy v Ratched conflict and does justice to the material from a cinematic viewpoint. But the book is superior because of the lyricism of Ken Kesey's writing and the and the deeper layers and themes explored neither of which could be captured on film effectively. Having said that the movie did aid the reading experience for me as I re-read the book for the umpteenth time mainly the humanity that Louise Fletcher added to the character of Nurse Ratched particularly after the death of Babbit. And I can not read the book without seeing Jack Nicholson as McMurphy. So take them as they are a classic film adaptation of a classic book and enjoy them both.
The movie does the book a great justice. Nurse Ratched and Murphy are portrayed to perfection and the movie really delivers that sense of humour and grief. Both film and book are great works of art.
I second what many people have said: The chief difference in the book is Chief Broom's outlook. I think that would have been an amazing thing to convey in film, but I'm not quite sure how Milos Forman could have pulled that off. I think both are absolutely brilliant and should be high on the list of modern classics.
John wrote: "I think that would have been an amazing thing to convey in film, but I'm not quite sure how Milos Forman could have pulled that off."I think that would've required the mad genius of Terry Gilliam or Guillermo del Toro.
My guess would be that about a million people have, myself included.
Yes.. as I recall.. The book was totally different than the movie. They both had their good points. One of the odd ones.. that it worked.. despite what medium one chose to immerse themselves in!
The movie is good, but it's necessarily from the third-peraon point of view. The novel's first-person makes an important difference.
Joining the consensus: both were great, but different. I also missed the Combine and fog references, but can see how they didn't fit in the confines of the movie.
If it were remade, I could see Kenneth Branagh playing McMurphy.
I thought the book was pretty insightful and witty. I read it after I saw the film and couldn't help but wonder how well-crafted the movie was. It seemed there were a handful of changes but I felt that they were great decisions when they put the story to screen. They did a great job!
I really liked both of them but the book had a whole lot more to it (obviously).
Usually, I'm quite pro-book or once in a rare while pro-movie but not pro-both. Cuckoo's Nest is the rare case where I think both reading the book and watching the movie are important. Often, you watch the movie to get a better understanding of the book (especially if you are a more visual person). But with Cuckoo, you get two completely different views of the same situation. The book and the movie actually fit quite well together to give more insight to the actions of the characters.
The movie is pretty good- I like Jack Nicholson's performance. The book is also a favorite of mine, so it's hard to choose. I think the book is better because I see a lot more insight going on, plus I prefer getting the story from Bromden's point of view. However, I would recommend watching the movie if you've read the book because it's actually a really good movie that follows the plot well, even if the point of view is switched up.
I guess in scope and power the book was pretty great. It had ideas that last to this day about societal problems and "Dog eat dog" type of world I guess. While the movie was a supreme adaptation it may have lost that power. I did enjoy the movie when I first saw it but for some reason I didn't get the idea that there was a theme of people being human afraid to go out there as it focused more on Jack Nicholson's "wacky" personality and we get little insight on what Bromden was going through though the little bit that he said was some definite gold.
I think it is on of those rare time where both the movie and book are both very good. they both have their strengths and both are considered classics.
Meghan wrote: "But with Cuckoo, you get two completely different views of the same situation. The book and the movie actually fit quite well together to give more insight to the actions of the characters."I like this assessment. Hadn't thought of it this way.
The film is like a diagonal slice into the book, a collaborative interpretation heavily influenced by what can be conveyed within a limited medium. This theatrical/film angle had several years to be developed and honed to perfection.
How the film came to be made is a story in itself. Kirk Douglas owned the theatrical rights for a long time so he could play the McMurphy role. It was a Broadway hit. When he got too old to play McMurphy, his son Mike got the film rights from him and paired up with Saul Zaents to produce it and director Milos Forman (High Noon) to get it made. This pedigree, along with the stellar acting cast, yielded a well-deserved five Oscars in top categories.
It is an American classic for good reason, not the least of which is the omnipresence of a strong Native American character.
For me both are utterly perfect.
I know people are going to probably think "no duh," but I realized reading the end of Monty's comment how Chief Bromden ties into the society's cruelness in consuming each other and trying to fight for either superiority or something else to feel they are better than others. Bromden's backstory is mainly that he is afraid he is going to be found out he is a human being so he stays inside himself and goes through lone turmoil. He is tortured thinking back when his father who, like he was tall as a tree, was "cut down" by Americans invading the land feeling that it is necessary to simply buy them out of their homes. As if that is enough right to tear down someone's home and force them not by their free will to go to unknown territory?A quote I posted in the section on this here in Goodreads:
McMurphy: "The way I remember it the tribe got paid some huge amount."
"That's what they said to him (Bromden's father). He said, What can you pay for the way a man lives? He said, What can you pay for the way a man is? They didn't understand."
The movie and the book are both brilliant but different animals. I've read the book twice and seen the movie several times. I recommend reading the book first, then not expecting something similar from the film.Folks today may not be aware that author Ken Kesey was a major figure of the late 60s counter-culture. His adventures in misadventure are recorded in Tom Wolfe's, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.
I read the book and saw the movie 2-3 times; I now own it. While I know I loved the book, I barely remember it, while I vividly recall the movie. I think it was an excellent adaptation.
Jennifer wrote: "How did the movie compare to the book?"I thought the movie was awesome. They are of course different for example in the book we learn that Chief Brooms affliction is that although he is a massive man, he believes himself to be tiny. He remains quiet so as not to attract attention and get crushed. The movie was terrific though and if I remember correctly swept the four main Oscar categories that year. Interestingly it was produced by Kirk and Michael Douglas, who accepted the Best Picture award.
John wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "How did the movie compare to the book?"I thought the movie was awesome. They are of course different for example in the book we learn that Chief Brooms affliction is that althoug..."
Per iMDb: 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' became the first film in 41 years to sweep the major categories...'
Academy Awards, USA 1976
Best Picture
Saul Zaentz Producer
Michael Douglas Producer
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Jack Nicholson
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Louise Fletcher
Best Director
Milos Forman
Best Writing, Screenplay Adapted From Other Material
Lawrence Hauben
Bo Goldman
(The adaptation was from both Ken Keseys' novel AND the Dale Wasserman stage version)
I remember standing in line to get in theater and being awed by the shocked looks on the faces of people exiting.
Yep. I think they all deserved that. And Louise was quietly effective as Nurse Ratched. Amazing.I hope no one ever lets it come across their mind to remake this film, as crazy-remaking Hollywood has been over the past 15 or so years!
If they remade it, the only way I can think of to circumvent the inevitable improbability of living up to the original film treatment would be to go back to telling it through Chief Bromden's voice. Make it a different movie. Bring in The Combine, etc.Thinking about it, given the technological advances, that could wind up being a very good film!
Renee wrote: "If they remade it, the only way I can think of to circumvent the inevitable improbability of living up to the original film treatment would be to go back to telling it through Chief Bromden's voice. Make it a different movie. Bring in The Combine, etc.Thinking about it, given the technological advances, that could wind up being a very good film! "
Very interesting. It could be incredibly thought-provoking if done well.
Renee wrote: "If they remade it, the only way I can think of to circumvent the inevitable improbability of living up to the original film treatment would be to go back to telling it through Chief Bromden's voice..."That would be a nice direction to go with a remake, although the movie that already exists it fine as is. A more "accurate-to-the-book" approach would certainly be welcome, assuming that it's done well with a good cast!
As others have said the book and film see the situation from different viewpoints I think that the book telling the story from the viewpoint of the Chief Bromden makes it more powerful. It also explains the motivation of Nurse Ratchet, who comes across in the film as being mean and nasty just because she can. I saw the film first and enjoyed it (if that it the right word) immensely. Reading the book took the whole thing to another level.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (other topics)One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (other topics)
