A film that deserves its praise, but comes nowhere near the quality of the book

Rating: 8/10 (6 January 2012)

If there is one thing that I would suggest that is strange about this film is that how could a film, based of a book written by a known drug user (Kesey loved LSD) that is clearly an attack at conformity and control in society be made into an academy award winning film. Personally that is a question that I do not know the answer too and in a sense probably can never know the answer too, though I do know that this book, written amongst the beat generation as an attack upon government, has now become required reading in highschool (I believe, though I know that I read this book when I was in highschool). I guess one of the reasons is that while this book is now a very popular book, it looks back at a time that we do not know and cannot remember, and thus in a sense sanitises the message. In fact there are a lot of books that are now on our reading list in which the writer, at the time, was considered a reactionary against the status quo, and in some cases, found themselves locked up as political prisoners. It is not until years after their death that the true literary genius of the work becomes appreciated.
As for the film, I must admit that it simply does not impress me in the same way that the book does. In fact it is a very rare incident where the film is as good as, or even better, than the book. The rare case would be where the book was utter rubbish, but a film maker comes along, who actually likes the book, and is able to create out of the book a film that encompasses what the film maker likes about the book. While that does not necessarily hold true in this case (the book is far better than the film) I do feel that this is what Milos Foreman has attempted to do here, that is try to capture the essence of the book in a new media.
For those have seen the film but have not read the book then I would encourage you to do so. I do feel that he does try to capture the essence, however there are numerous aspects that would be very hard to do, such as getting into the chief's mind, and even trying to bring out his paranoid schizophrenia. In the book the Chief is the main character, however the main character in the film is McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), and while the Chief plays an important role, he is not necessarily the central figure.
Like the book, the film focuses on the conflict between McMurphy and Nurse Ratchett, however I noticed that in the film, Ratchett seems to always hold all the cards, and McMurphy tries, and fails, to beat her. This differs from the book where it is clear that McMurphy seems to always have the upperhand, namely because he is a central figure among the patients on the ward. He is their leader, their messiah, the one who opens them up and makes them feel confident with themselves. Further, in the book, there is actually quite a high bodycount, one which Ratchett tries, but fails, to pin on McMurphy. In the film only Billy Bibbit dies, and when McMurphy responds in the way that he does, it does not seem to have the same impact. The book is clear in that after McMurphy busts Ratchett's vocal chords, she does not have the same hold over the ward as she did previously, and moreso, there is the scene where McMurphy literally defrocks her (though it is still a metaphorical sense in which he rips off her clothes) which further emasculates here. She is never the same again afterwards, but this is not the same in the film. It is clear that Ratchett still retains her sense of dignity, and it is clear (as opposed to the book) that it is McMurphy that has been emasculated.
Finally, I wish to suggest that in the film we have less sympathy for the patients than we do in the book. Throughout the film they are fighting and bickering amongst each other, and both Ratchett and McMurphy sit back to watch them go at each others throats. Obviously there is Ratchett as judge, jury, and executioner, with no appeal allow, and this is similar in the book, but in the book McMurphy does take control of the meetings, and the ward, over that of Ratchett, and every time Ratchett believes she has wrenched the ward back from him, McMurphy has pulled the rug out from underneath here. This is in particular with the Doctor, whom McMurphy builds a good relationship with, while in the film, the Doctor is clearly on Ratchett's side, meaning that one weapon that McMurphy clearly has in the book, has been blunted in the film.
Don't get me wrong, this is a good film, but the more I think about it, the more that I come to realise that what has happened is that a popular, and well written book, has one again been blunted by the Hollywood machine to create a scene that is more palpable to the powers that be. While books are much less expensive to write, and require a lot less investment (even more so in the days of the internet), there are numerous authorities that need to be pleased for a film to be released. It is only where the film is produced outside of the American mainstream (and even the tremendous amounts of funding are still required) that the standard is relaxed, and we are able to see films that challenge the status quo.