Discussion on One That Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Consider the Wednesday post of one of your classmates. In a minimum of 250 words, discuss whether you agree or disagree with a classmate's assessment of the implications posed. Use examples from the movie and novel to support your argument. The ending of the film versus the ending of the book gives off two different feelings. After watching the film and seeing how much was removed from the ending I found that I actually liked the ending so much more than what had been in the book.

The first difference that I noticed was the fact that McMurphy's condition wasn't as show worthy as it is in the book. From page 176 of OFOCN, "The ward door opened, and the black boys wheeled in this Gurney with a chart at the bottom that said in heavy black letters, MCMURPHY, RANDLE P. POST-OPERATIVE. And below this was written in ink, LOBOTOMY." In the movie, it was never said that he was lobotomized, but that the other patients thought he had escaped. The only one that actually realized was Chief when he went over to his bed to see that McMurphy was in fact completely changed. I think this was meant to show how much of an impact McMurphy's personality effected Chief. We see throughout the movie and even the book, how Randle effected the other patients and how strong of a character and presence he was, but Chief's feelings and thoughts were completely absent from the film. There was no narration, he didn't even speak much. I feel like this scene played a big part of showing how close he felt to McMurphy and how much he felt for the man after everything that happened.

The second difference between the film and the book was the scene of Chief escaping. In the book it talks about Chief thinking about going back for the others. It says that Chief heard the squeaking footsteps of the orderly, but in the movie there was none of that. I feel like the film's scene showed how done Chief was with everything that he saw. Who knows how long he had been in that hospital, staying silent about everything he saw. He only ever spoke to McMurphy and that was still very rare. He only ever showed any type of emotion when it had something to do with McMurphy. The scene in the movie was pretty much all about him and escaping. It was about him "taking" McMurphy away with him, because he didn't think the man deserved to stay in such a place the way he was. I didn't get a feeling of Chief caring about anyone else, but when it came to the other patients it seemed like they cared more about Chief escaping, or anyone for that matter. The breaking of the window can be a sign of breaking through the system of freeing himself from what he had been silent about for so long and the other patients rooting for him for making such a decision when they couldn't.

The last difference is the ambiguous ending. Chief walks off into the sunset, but that doesn't mean his story would stop there. We don't know his plans, what he wants to do, or even his story really. All we've ever known about Chief was the small tidbit about his father. From the film, Chief hasn't stepped outside of the facility. Even in the book it talks about him going on the fishing trip with the other guys, but in the film he didn't go with them, which means from the films perspective he hasn't been outside of the hospital since before he was admitted there. I kind of like how open-ending the film is and how mysterious Chief's thoughts are when it comes to what he wants to do. In the book, he talks about maybe going to Canada or Columbia, to see the sights or see old friends, but in the film, we know nothing of him or his life before or after the hospital and I think that's an interesting concept. I feel like it's kind of a way to put yourself in the man's shoes and try to understand what you would do, what would you think about after such an ordeal. All you had was freedom before you, to make it your own and I think that's what it was meaning to do throughout the film.

I disagree, with how you see the ending of the movie. Letters and changes do not really implicate change, for this depicts reality, and most viewers will not see this change due to the actor's occurrences. I am not saying that you are wrong but, if you look at from my point of view the changes in the script to how the person did something would be a change. (For example, like how Nurse Ratched catches Billy and the prostitute, and how they hold hands and smile and then in another scene the nurse stands there in the door without them noticing and walks away.) Now this is a major change and really affects the viewer, because they expect to see this. I don't see letters on the back of a chair as a change. It's the actor's emotions and feelings also the scenes that occur in the movie compared to the novel that show difference. Always look at the scene changes not the numbers or item changes. Now with the Chief he closes McMurphy's eyes and in another instance he has a pillow over his face. This shows two different emotions. The first was that the pillow suggested that he thought the character was acting, and with him shutting his eyes this suggested that he really did not care about the character that much. This is what you should really look at the character changes, sometimes people look at the movie and the book by change in words, text, and also scene changes. Not everybody looks at this the same, and you really go from your own opinion, I am not saying that you are wrong, because everyone sees this novel and the film differently, this is what the discussion and the online forums are for, to boast your option, and site what you see different from what others do. There really cannot be a correct answer, but the scenes and the actors are what we all focus on. Great post!!!!!

Created on January 16, 2016 by Lionel Sharpe (student) || Professor Bonnie Ronson ||Classmate at 6:58 PM