Don't forget to write your full name on the first line of your entry.
1. Pick one scene from the movie and give three details describing how that is the same or different in the book.
Or
2. Giving at least three reasons with specific details defend what is better the movie or the book.
Remember you will lose points if you pick the same scene or details that someone else has used.
Be original and creative. Dazzle me and your classmates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Garrett Johnson
ReplyDeleteHarding and a few Acutes are in the bathing room playing Monopoly, and Harding is getting dangerously upset when another patient playing monopoly pokes him and tells him to 'just play the game'. Many of the Acutes proceed to get upset and McMurphy sprays them all with water to get them to stop yelling and fighting with one another.
I think that the movie portrays this scene much better than the book does.
-Harding is portrayed in the book as a more quiet, settle man rather than the firey man that he appears to be in the movie. In the movie he comes across as more of a man's man rather than the more feminine man he seems to be in the book.
-McMurphy appears to take over the ward much faster in the movie than he does in the book. The imagery in the movie is much more vivid with him spraying water on all of the Acutes to get them in line.
-In the movie it goes from one big event in the ward to the next. The book is packed with flash-backs and insight on topics such as society and the Chief's life, but the movie is very simple to follow which I like.
Kirsten Zoba
ReplyDeleteIn the scene in the movie, Bromden and McMurphy are sitting in Disturbed waiting to be taken into the waiting room area where they'll be shocked. McMurphy hands Bromden a piece of gum and this is when Bromden first speaks.
This is different from the book because:
1) In the book when McMurphy gives the Chief gum, they are laying in their beds.
2) I think the book portrays this moment better because the idea of the Chief chewing old gum over and over that has been stuck under his bed has much more significance than never chewing gum before that point in the movie.
3) In the novel, McMurphy sings a jingle to Chief Bromden ("In the morning... will it be too hard to bite?") which almost makes Chief laugh. The laugh is also important because it signifies the psychological betterment of the patients on the ward. The movie does not reference this jingle.
Bridget Cook
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the book but thought the movie was a sad representation of all the ideas and feelings through out the book. I felt that many of the actors in the movie didn't fit the characters in the book at all. For example, as I was reading I saw McMurphy as a much larger and rugged man so I don't think Jack Nicholson was the right actor, physicaly, for his part. The movie over-simplified many of the sybols and ongoing themes in the book, to me it felt more like an overview of the book becuase so many small but important details were left out! Like when McMurphy attacks the big nurse, in the book he rips her uniform exposing her breasts, but in the movie he just chokes her to the ground. Changing this scene took away the hint of sexual dominace that McMurphy had over the nurse. The director included the main points in the book but left out some of the underlying issues like racism and conformity.
Crystal Nybo
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, McMurphy steals the bus and drives all the main guy characters in the movie away from the ward. From that point, they visit his house for a very short time and go fishing without contacting the fishing company first. The nurse knows nothing about the plan in the movie.
This is different from the movie because...
1. Chief went on the boat in the book and everything was given from his point of view and that was a huge contribution to the book. In the movie we missed out on his thoughts and inside on everyones life.
2. The movie created the scene where the nurse had no idea about the fishing trip, but in the book McMurphy cleared the trip with the nurse which gave more of a feeling of triumph over the nurse because she knew about it and she couldn't do anything about it.
3. The scene where Candy was being hollered at by the surrounding fishermen wasn't included in the movie and I feel like that scene gave a lot of meaning to the confidence issues of the men on the ward. It also showed how they have a hard time dealing with what the real world dishes out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBreanna Taylor
ReplyDeleteSome guards walk in, transporting someone in handcuffs and everyone in the dorm checks him out. Its McMurphy, and as soon as he gets the handcuffs off he laughs wildly and bounces around like a crazy man.
I didn't like the movie at all compared to the book. I believe the only way they were similar is the characters names and the basic plot parts, and i was really dissapointed.
1. One huge thing the book was missing was the laughing status of the acutes. They were portrayed as solemn, serious, everything was a huge deal and depressed them. McMurphy shows up and gives them laughter and suddenly the world doesnt seem so dark anymore, I think that lesson was lost in the movie was the importantness to laugh.
2. Another important lesson that I felt was lost was McMurphys facade of indestructability in the book. There were few scenes where McMurphy showed signs of weakness like getting angry or anything, and that was his power was his ability to show the big nurse she could do nothing to bother him, even after he started recieving electro shock therapy. McMurphy was HUGE in the book, but he acts so insane and different in the movie you dont really see the indestructability and the scene where Chief kills him is more confusing.
3. I was dissapointed about the staff, it seemed like they had more power amongst the big nurse, like they were at her level rather than way below. The black boys were sposed to be stupid, hateful little boys but she had these twenty something, polite men and I didn't picture it like that, it just makes the strength of the characters dwindle.
Anna Billmaier
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
There was a scene in the movie where McMurphy went up to the Nurse's window to talk to the Big Nurse--I believe he is talking to her about taking medication--and his hand is placed on her window. In her gentle voice she says to him, "Your hand is staining my window." And he gently removes his hand.
1. This same scene happened in the book, where McMurphy tried to talk to the Nurse in her office. However, there was not a line in the book talking about McMurphy's hand touching her window. I liked this in the movie because it foreshadowed McMurphy breaking through the Nurse's window to get the cigarettes and it symbolized the window as the Nurse's safety and how she needed it clean to watch over everyone in the ward. However, I would not have made this connection in the movie if I had not read the book, so I think that reading the book really helped understand the movie better.
2. I think the book is much better than the movie. I don't believe that the movie really touched on the key points that the book did, such as the importance of the fog and how each one of us need to be fixed in some way. I feel that the movie was more just a movie rather than a copy of the book. The book really made some interesting points that connects to the "all-American" lifestyle and such. I think that the movie really missed touching on all of these motifs. I think I would have liked the movie better if I hadn't read the book first. This way I wouldn't be analyzing the differences and how much the movie left out compared to what was in the book as much as I did while watching the movie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKatie Martens
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
I believe that the book is much better than the movie because of the way that the characters were portrayed. The movie completely changed the descriptions of three characters, Bromden, Nurse Ratched, and McMurphy.
1. With Bromden, he was seen as one of the main characters in the book. We went through flashbacks of his childhood, and found his inner thoughts and feelings throughout the book. In the movie, however, he is just seen as a crazy man who just pretends to be deaf and dumb. He was a very interesting character that gave a lot of insight to the book that was not seen in the movie.
2. Nurse Ratched in the book was seen as the person who had complete control of the ward. One scene in the movie that bothered me was during the staff meeting. Here it was shown that the doctor had much more control than her, making her much less intimidating.
3. Finally, McMurphy’s character was changed in that he actually did begin to act crazy while he was at the ward. In the book McMurphy’s seemed like more of an intelligent man, whereas in the movie all of these characteristics were lost.
The way that these characters were changed completely altered the overall mood of the story. For me, this change was for the worse. The way Keasey described the characters gave for a more interesting plot, and even the subtle changes in the movie made it seem like the characters were much different.
Christine Nafziger
ReplyDeleteI think that the book is better than the movie. The book goes more into death about different parts that the movie leaves out.
One of these major parts that I see is missing from the movie is the fog. The fog is a huge part of the book. Bromoden always hides in the fog to escape from everything. Whenever something happens that he does not like or want to get away from, Bromoden can just go into the fog for days. By leaving the fog out of the movie takes away from seeing Bromoden come out of his shell and go against the nurse.
Another reason the book is better is because there are more details about the patients. You learn about Billy’s, Harding’s and Bromden’s pasts more than in the movie. In the movie there is nothing about how Billy got his stutter or how Bromden decided to pretend to be deaf and dumb. These are important details to be able to understand the story better but since they were left out of the movie you are not able to get to know all the characters as well.
Finally, in the book it talks a lot about how people conform the same way and having the mental ward is a way to conform the people that are different. All the things that happen in the ward are to help the patients conform to society. This was not seen in the movie as much because in the book it talked a lot about how all the patients must conform and how the ward was part of the combine. It is never mentioned in the movie about how conforming is important.
Sarah Hale!
ReplyDeleteIn the story, after the final physical quarrel between McMurphy and the Nurse, the Nurse lost one of the most important traits to her character (or anybody’s character for that matter) she lost her voice.
In the movie, once the nurse recovered and returned to the ward, the first scene she was introduced in staged her in her office speaking over her intercom with a neck brace on. This would have been impossible in the story, due to the fact that when McMurphy strangled her, she had no longer had her voice. The scene in the book reintroduces her entering the ward with a tighter, less efficient, white uniform, and being approached by Harding who asked what had become of Mack. The uniform I believe acts as a metaphor because it no longer allows the Nurse to present herself the way that she’d like. The new uniform reveals her womanly figure. Such an outfit was not seen in the movie either.
Secondly, during the book the Nurse’s loss of her ability to speak meant loosing an immense amount of power in the ward. It was more than just her voice, it was loosing the respect and the authority she had over her patients.
Lastly, the fact that she was forced to write anything and everything down on paper that she wanted to get across to her patients made her that much less influential. In the book, Harding and George both signed out because they no longer feared the wrath of the Nurse. This didn’t happen in movie, in fact, the patients still hadn’t signed out by the time the Chief escaped the ward at the end of the movie.
Laura Ahlrep
ReplyDeleteThe scene where McMurphy is first let outside into the courtyard to play basketball, and with this first meets Chief and tries to teach him how to make a basket despite the black boys trying to get McMurphy to give up because Chief is deaf and dumb.
In the book this scene never occured yet I think it was a great way to show the bonding of McMurphy and the Chief and how Chief eventually opened up. First, one difference is that the black boys aren't at all agressive to McMurphy even though he is obviously against control. The black boys do slander the Chief which can relate back to the book but not one hundred percent taking the movie toned down a lot of original comments. Also, Chief and McMurphy never started with such a relationship such as this one, where McMurphy personaly helps him right away. I do think this scene does add humor and gives McMurphy a kinder look because he focuses on somehow who normally no one gives any attention too.
Derek Decker
ReplyDeleteA scene depicted in the movie is the group therapy session in which Harding's marital problems constitute the topic of the discussion. The other patients, starting with Max Taber, begin to tear Harding apart with insults.
There are numerous differences between the book's depiction and the film's depiction.
-In the book, Max Taber was a very domineering person similar to McMurphy that had been released some time before McMurphy's arrival. In the film, Taber has basically no backstory other than that he was committed to the ward. Moreover, he was still there.
-The film showed the actual group therapy session and the insults against Harding, where in the book, Bromden recalls a much earlier session in which people began to make phony confessions. During this earlier session, Pete suddenly steps up and lucidly states for once in his life how he hated being born a miscarriage, stepping out of his "fog," if only for an instant. In the film, Pete can briefly be seen standing up and complaining that he's tired, but it isn't seen as out of the ordinary.
-The book's portrayal of the scene first started with McMurphy's record being revealed to the rest of the Ward. After that, McMurphy is silent for the rest of the meeting, after which he tells Harding that the session is a "pecking party" in which the Nurse, through insinuation, pecks first. In the film, the record is revealed in Spivey's office, and McMurphy laughs during the meeting. The conversation about the Nurse's totalitarian, "ball-cutting" ways is not present in the film.
Lexy Kaftan
ReplyDeleteIn the fishing trip scene there were more than three things different. but for starters in the book the fishing trip was planned out and discussed before it happened where as in the movie mcmurphy just hijacked the bus and drove off to pick up Candy.
Also in the movie it was a big charter boat and in th book it was a little fishing boat.
In the movie everyone from the ward isnt on the boat when they leave for their trip. Bromden is on the boat in the book but not the movie.
Gina Tuthill
ReplyDeleteI don't like how they portrayed the black boys in the movie because they made them too nice. In the book I pictured them as being full of hatred and despise towards everyone except the big nurse.
Also, in the book, they described them as being somewhat abusive to the patients, like when they're in the shower room and other various places they were required to be with the patients. In the shower, they were said to have high power pressure hoses and they're basically pressed against the wall from the power of the water.
In the book, the black boys were said to have made Chief Broomden to sweep and that's how he got the nickname. But in the movie, they had Chief Broomden sweeping anytime he was in the background and no black boys were anywhere near him or even snickering when they were around him.
Also, the black boys only seemed to be on call throughout the movie instead of constantly being there so at the snap of the Big Nurse's fingers.
Personally, I think they should have had the black boys be more aggressive towards the patients instead of the times where they're only needed as force.
Will Quattlebaum
ReplyDeleteScene: Billy goes crazy after being caught by the Big Nurse having sex with Candy.
1: This was similar in the fact that the Big Nurse had Washington, a black boy, do a head count. After he reported that Billy was missing, she had him look for him. A difference though is that she sent all the help to look for him and not just Washington.
2: It was also similar that Billy at first stood up to Miss Ratched at first. He was able to talk without stuttering and had confidence in his voice. Also similar is that after the Big Nurse brought up his mom, Billy had his breakdown. He went crazy. I think a difference in this is that he went crazier than in the movie, but they may be just that we are able to see it.
3: A difference is that in the book, I don't remember all the men on the ward backing Billy up. I thought this was interesting as before McMurphy came, the men seemed a little distant from each other. Now they seem more close, which I think is cool.
Jenny Hergert
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn't like about the movie wasn't one scene in particular, but rather a particualr character. I didn't like how Doctor Spivey was given so much power in the movie; it made it feel like he could override the nurse's power, which definitely didn't happen in the book.
1). It says specifically in the book that Spivey was chosen by Nurse Ratched to be the doctor on the ward because he had no spine to stand up to her power.
2). In the book, when the doctor starts to rebel against the Nurse along side the patients, it makes scenes, such as the fishing trip, much more significant, and also makes the nurse's downfall seem more complete.
3). In the movie, having the doctor seem much more powerful greatly takes away from illusion of Nurse Ratched's power over the ward. The nurse is turned into someone who may be subject to another's rule instead of an all-powerful and controlling dictator. This not only takes away from the Nurse's character and development, but it takes away from the plot.
Gina Chenoweth
ReplyDeleteIn the movie, the patients vote on whether or not watch the World Series over the course of a few days, rather than in one day. The scene leads to McMurphy trying to pick up the control panel and toss it out the window.
The scene is the same because there is a vote, just like there was in the book, however, the vote in the movie took two days. After his vote in the movie was denied, McMurphy made up a fake game for the patients to listen to so he could defy the nurse. This was when McMurphy began to realize it was a bad idea to piss off the nurse since she has so much control over him. The vote was similar to the book, but was coupled with McMurphy’s realization to save time. This way the entire bit about McMurphy wanting to date the nurse.
Nik Toor
ReplyDeleteChief growing as a character is done much better in the book then the movie. In the movie it was done very fast over one or two scenes. The scene that chief really developed into one of the guys was the second basketball scene when he scores and then eventually feels comfortable and runs back.
1. The basketball scene wasn't even in the book, but only in the movie. I think this is because it was an easy way to show how chief is starting to come out and be one of the guys.
2. In the book we were in chief's head the entire book and it did a good job of slowly developing chief all the way throughout the book.
3. The movie seemed to rush through the entire development of chief and it didn’t really explain what chief's attitude toward McMurphy was, like how he seems him as a large man.
Tori Weisel
ReplyDeleteI think that the scene where Chief throws the control panel through the window and then escapes from the ward was done better in the book then in the movie.
1. In the movie as Chief was going out the window they played music that I don’t think was appropriate for the scene. It made the scene seem less important than it really was because it was stereotypical Native American music.
2. In the book right before Chief smashed through the window Scanlon tells Chief to hurry and get out because the nurse will know that Chief killed McMurphy. In the movie after Chief kills McMurphy he goes straight to the control panel and smashes the window.
3. In the movie after Chief got out of the ward all the patients in the ward started cheering for Chief and in the book most of the patients had already been transferred and it didn’t say anything about them cheering for Chief once he got out.
Savannah Guillen
ReplyDeleteThis scene is when McMurphy complains about the music being too loud because he is new to the ward and hasn’t become immune to the music like the other patients. The most noticeable difference is that in the movie McMurphy goes straight to the Nurse’s Station to try and turn off the music, while in the book McMurphy is stopped by Harding’s warning that a move like that would forfeit the bet to exert his power over the Nurse. In the movie, the Nurse catches McMurphy while he is attempting to turn off the music, and she escorts him out of her office while admonishing him that patients aren’t allowed in that area. Another difference in the book was that McMurphy’s voice got louder and louder in order to be heard over the music, while in the movie the scene cut to the men playing cards in the tub room.
In my opinion, after reading the book, the movie just couldn’t compare. The book was much more intricate and explained a lot more of the character background, which would be difficult to do in a movie unless you wanted it to be five hours long. The movie portrayed most of the major scenes in the book, but the scenes were shortened and proceeded in rapid-fire order. That being said, I really enjoyed the movie and I think that it was a good representation of the main ideas of the book. The book was much better concerning character background, because there were so many details about the past lives of Harding, Billy Bibbit, and Bromden. I also think the book was better in portraying the struggle for power between McMurphy and the Nurse because the Nurse seemed so threatening in the book, especially during the group meetings, while in the movie she was slightly less scary.
Samielle Foltz
ReplyDeleteHands down, I thought the book was better than the movie. I know a movie can portray only so much of the detail and artistry of the book but come on, it didn't appear to me that they even tried. The movie lacked so much detail. In a book we can picture what's going on in the story and in a movie we can actually look at things but still, poor detail. The entire setting didn't seem so closed off to me like I thought it was portrayed in the book. I thought the main room where they spend most of their time would have had more walls instead of wired walls? It was just too open and airy. I pictured the main room to be closed off with the chairs on one side of the room where the acutes would be sitting and the area where the poker etc. was handled would be on the other side. Then maybe there would be a window or two with not just white washed walls but a little bit of drab green or blue just to “cheer” things up a bit. Maybe their budget suddenly got smaller or something? Brombden was supposed to like his surroundings in the book. He thought everything was nicer than they had been previously in the past. For example pictures to get lost into. I only remember one picture shown in the movie and that was in the doctors office out of Brombden's visual perception for the most part. Plus there was no such thing as a bulletin where things could be posted. No one would get the idea that the nurse was trying to do everything she could to control things from every angle. Sure the nurse had control a bunch of things but no one would really, really could get the idea that she had complete control over things. Not to the extent that every one was made hopelessly lost in themselves.
Erik Enselman
ReplyDeleteThe second basketball scene in the movie when they are playing a real game and cheif makes 2 shots didnt even happen in the book. I think that they just added this scene to the movie to make it more interesting because they took some scenes out of the movie. During this scene, I think the black boys got a clue that the cheif was not deaf and dumb because they were all shocked that he figured out how toput the ball in the hoop. In my opinion, I didnt mind the movie, I just thought that they shouldnt have changed so much from the book. Some of the scenes were very well done. They did change alot by adding the basketball scenes and they changed the fishing trip alot, and also left out Hardings wife but other then that, it wasnt horrible.
Jaina shah
ReplyDelete“In the movie I thought people looked happier then in the book they did.”In the novel we can see that everything is dark and in the movie pretty much everything is white. I didn’t like the color of combinations and setting of the movie. Also, I felt, like the in the book big nurse had the control over her patient, but in the movie, it felt she didn’t have any control over them. If they would have little different on the color that would have changed little bit of it.
Even if they made some scene, black that would have turned out way better then it was made. I like the book better because in the book everything is given in detail. In the movie I thought, everything was moving way to fast and skipping a lot of the scene. If I hadn’t read the book then I, probably would have no idea what would have been the real story would have liked.
April Dick
ReplyDeleteAlthough the movie is very well respected and well thought of, I found the book to be much richer. One of the details the movie lacked was the machinery that Chief Bromden used to describe the ward.
1. The idea of machinery adds unique imagery to the book that helps give us a more detailed picture of the ward. Although it's obvious the machinery is merely the Chief's creative way of describing the Nurse and her system, these details make the story come to life to the reader.
2. The machinery compliments the idea of conformity because the Chief uses machines to describe how the ward fixes its patients and how Nurse Ratched keeps the men in regulation. Lacking both these concepts makes the movie less meaningful and detailed than the book.
3. Leaving out the machinery takes away the graphic scene where Bromden witnesses Blastic being taken down into the basement of the ward and cut open by these machines that they hide deep down in the system. This scene, not to be interpreted in a literal sense, seems to be the pinnacle of the Chief's hallucinations and yet the movie ignores them completely.
Brian Gleadle
ReplyDeleteThe Scene: Chesiwick is yelling and screaming for his cigarettes, McMurphy walks over to the Nurses window and smashes his fist through it to grab him a pack.
1. Same: In the book all the guys are making a big scene over the fact that they want their cigarettes and so McMurphy goes and smashes the window to grab a pack. The same as he did in the movie.
2. Different: In the book it becomes a game for McMurhpy where he brakes through it twice then it gets broken again by a basketball. However in the movie it only happened once and was never referred to again.
3. Different: the way the nurse reacted to McMurphy doing that was different in the movie. She seemed much more calm in everything in the movie then i pictured her in the book. In the book she called on the black boys down upon him and in the movie she just sat there.
Brody Hovatter
ReplyDeleteThe scene near the end of the movie where McMurphy hosts a party in the ward seems pretty similar to the book at first, but has some significant differences. In the book, the whole point of the party is so that McMurphy can set Billy up with Candy. In the movie however, McMurphy has the girls over for himself. In the movie, McMurphy also has the girls over for the purpose of escaping the hospital, but in the book he considers the idea of escaping only after it is suggested to him. McMurphy also offers to take Billy with him in the movie, and this is not the case in the book.
Mark Galambos
ReplyDeleteIt's the same for every novel to movie translation, if you read the book, you're not going to like the movie. In almost every single movie adaptation of famous novels, things are left out, plots changed and characters changed, and it is expected that most readers will have problems with the final movie version, as Kesey did with his own movie adaptation: in fact he never ended up watching "his" movie. It is difficult to say which is better, though: the movie, or the book?
By reading the book you experience something tremendously different than watching a movie, you have insight on all the characters thoughts, you see things from multiple different points of view, and you can relate with characters and have more time to develop a bond with them. In a novel there is often more room to expand on ideas, allusions, and meanings the author is trying to show, there is more time to show smaller bits and pieces that help fit a story together.
A movie however is an entirely different form of artwork: film should not be considered on the same level as literature, because there are things movies can do, that novels cannot. Even though the movie left out things that were in Kesey's book, the film version changed it so that it could be more widely celebrated in it's own way. The chief may have been excluded from the movie version, but making McMurphy seems larger and more prominent than in the novel made up for it. Yes, there are things that people will not enjoy: the fact that the nurse is not as threatening and controlling as Kesey made her out to be, yet in the film version she is still portrayed as incredibly nasty.
I cannot say which I liked more, the novel or the film, because they are both so different in their own ways.
Dan McMillan
ReplyDeleteTo me I sayt both the movie and book were both good. Although i prefer the book, the moie was good in other ways then the book was. The reason i say that the book is better than the movie is becasue the story was better and there was much more detail than the movie. I feel that in the movie you are able to feel and are better to understand the same feelings as the characters in the book compared to the movie where there is really no depth or backround to any one character besides McMurphy. The movie was a good effort for a remake but the book takes the cake. I think it would be interesting to watch the movie again if it were to be remade now oppose to back then.
Denisse Manrique
ReplyDeleteI don’t think you can really compare the book and the movie. The book was full of important details and imagery that the movie failed to include. The book made you feel the same frustration that McMurphy was feeling and lead you to understand all of the characters. This allowed for the actions and events that occur throughout the book to create similar emotions in the readers and the characters. The screenplay for the movie wasn’t even written by the author and he didn’t even have any say as to how the movie was would be made.
That’s why I feel that comparing them wouldn’t really make sense, but as if you look at them as separate works of art then I think they are both good. I really enjoyed the book because it brought up a very important issue in a point of view I hadn’t looked before. The movie was good I felt that if they had added another hour they could have made it much better. They could have included details from the book that would have made the movie feel more complete. When I watched the movie I felt incomplete, like an incomplete puzzle where the most important pieces are missing and the image just doesn’t look right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaxx Forde
ReplyDeleteIn the scene where McMurphy comes back after shock therapy was different in the movie and the book because in the movie, not only does it happen just once, it seems to happen much faster. In the movie, McMurphy was already out of his daze when he first came back to the ward. In the book however, over the increased sessions, he was wearing down, albeit slowly. That is why Big Nurse had McMurphy come back to the ward in the book, because at first when the Big Nurse keeps him in Disturbed, McMurphy's legend grows. That's why she decides to bring him back, to show that he's slowing, at least a little bit. This is not shown in the least bit in the movie. He just comes back right after shock therapy, and is already fine. Although he does say in the book that a few volts aren't going to do much to him to all the guys, it just isn't the case. In the movie, there is not the slightest notion that it has done anyhthing to him and that he is putting on a show for the guys so that their morale is not shaken. I just don't like how this part was executed in the movie.
Craig Thomas
ReplyDeleteat the very end of the movie when the cheif breaks out is very different then the book. in the book they made it a very big deal, the cheif seemed to be cured. but in the movie they really down played it. there was this old school indian music playing in the background and throughout the whole movie the chief seemed secondary but at the end they made him seem really important and significant
The pool scene started out similarily in the movie as it did in the book. The key differences were that Cheswich did not commit suicide in the pool and that Washington told McMurphy that Ms.Ratched was the one who made the final decision about when he could be released, instead of being told by another patient. Other than those two big differences, I think the pool scene was well executed. One thing that was similar to the movie in that scene was the way the pool was set up. By forcing the patients, even the one's who didn't want to, to go swimming. This was played out the same way that I imagined it while reading the book.
ReplyDeleteThe book was better than the movie because it had many more details. For instance, in the pool scene, Cheswick's death was important to the plot of the story. Because the book had more space to address the issues of conformity and feminism, the movie was only able to touch on some of those huge details. I didn't like how the movie portrayed the battle between McMurphy and the Big Nurse and not enough the idea of the "combine". It was a great movie, but I definately had a biased viewpoint because I really enjoyed the book and wanted to see many of the scenes that I found interesting in the book to be reinacted in the film that were just left out in general.
1. The stolen bus scene in the movie was very different than the book. As i remember this scene in the book, there was no stolemn bus. There had been a plan to go fishing as a group, but instead, in the movie Mcmurphy decided to take everyone out on a stolen bus drive, then go fishing. So this scene in the movie was pretty much made up.
ReplyDelete2. The book and the movie turned out to be very different in my opinion. The book was much better at getting across the actual personalities and feelings of the characters. for example, in the book big nurse is displyed as much more agressive, and intimidating, whereas in the movie, we get the impression she is a nice lady. She talks in a very low calm voice throughout the movie, which is not at all what i imagined in the book. Also, bromden is seen as much more powerful in the movie than the book. In the book, Big Nurse is seen as the most powerful, and in charge of everything that goes on in the ward, but in the movie, Bromden is seen much more often, and seems to have more power over what goes on in the ward. Lastly, Big Nurse seemed to put up with more in the movie than the book. in the book Big Nurse would not allow any misbehavior, and would talk down to anyone that did something wrong, but in the movie she would never change her tone of voice.
Overall, the book was much better at portraying actuall emotions actions and personalities.