Even More Cuckoo

You thought you had enough of the Cuckoo meta?  But we've only just begun.

WARNING: YOUR FAVORITE MOVIE IS TRASH & SO ARE YOU.

This was originally posted on my tumblr blog aaaay.

Bought a few books for last semester that we didn’t even use.  Might as well read them just to make myself feel better.  I’m actually going to keep Devotional Cinema, by Nathaniel Dorsky, & it inspired me to write more about how much I really don’t like that movie.  I’m not done with the book yet so I might add more to this post or make another one @ a later time.  :]

tl/dr: While the movie was still “well-made,” to the point where it received high critical praise & multiple Academy Awards, it had none of the magic of the book.  & even with all its praise, it did not make me feel devoted to it – unlike Kesey’s novel. 

Dorsky begins his lecture describing religious devotion to film – which can also be applied to novels, especially given what fandom does here [this isn’t a negative… altho fandom can get to that irrational fervor too.]  But Dorsky focuses on what makes film “a direct and intimate model, for our being” (16).  Something that completes us, defines us, transforms us, & even transcends us.  Films can “[reveal] the depths of our own reality, [and open] us to a fuller sense of ourselves and our world.  It is alive as a devotional form” (16).  But few films can successfully achieve all of the requirements to be “devotional.” & Dorsky has so many criteria & definitions… it’s best if you just check the thing out yourself.

But a few things really struck me - & had me looking back on such a huge disappointment Forman’s film is for me.  It’s so disheartening that I see it [& other “book purists”] but not other people.  & when I say that I don’t like it, some people think that I’m assaulting all of film’s history, & spitting on the Academy Awards system.  How could I NOT like something that swept so many awards?  How could I NOT like one of THE seminal works of the 1970s?  How could I NOT embrace 2 characters, portrayed by award-winning & highly beloved actors?  I commit sacrilege.  But I accuse this movie of the same thing.  How could I dare to love something that insults the thing I love? 

Forman is a great director, but just… not for this.  & because he is a great director in his own right, some might think that I’m attacking his prestige & all of his film history.  I’m not… he just didn’t tackle this from the right mindset.  The only scene that did the novel justice was when Billy died.  That was the only time I felt satisfied.  The rest of his “vision” – & this is HIS vision, not Kesey’s [since the man & his staff didn’t follow much of the source material @ all] – is flawed.  & yeah I’ll say this: it’s an overrated film from a director that has a rather good body of work.

Dorsky states that a film is imbalanced “when there is nothing but the view of the filmmaker, when nothing is the film is really permitted to exist in its own right” (26).  This is one of the many problems of the film.  Character relationships do not exist, except for how they relate to the plot.  & Forman & crew slash out so much of the important dynamics – that exist both FOR plot in the book & for their own sake.  Sure there’s a lot more leeway in a novel [you don’t have to worry about screentime], but that shouldn’t be an excuse to remove EVERYTHING, or to have stiff & excruciating interactions thrown in “just because.”  This single-mindedness is dangerous because it “eliminates the possibility of any autonomy within the film; the film has no ability to respond or resonate within itself.  There is no freedom, no air to breathe” (26).  In my final paper for my History of Film 2 class, I cover how underwhelming the film is for me [particularly in the scenes that were CLIMAXES in the novel], but I’m not sure I covered how stifled I felt nearly as much.  & it’s not just because it didn’t follow the book.  It just… I felt NOTHING from it.  I’m watching something, but I feel as tho I am being forced to watch it.  I’m like Alex with my eyes pried open.  Instead of viewing & embracing my friends – because these characters mean the world to me – I start to hate them.  I hate the Big Nurse for all the WRONG reasons, because she ISN’T herself.  Chief is almost a meta-character at this point; he’s stripped of his personhood by the Combine, but also by the film.  He isn’t given freedom to talk because HE’S GIVEN NO SCREEN TIME.  He isn’t given reason to exist, because HE HAS NO AGENCY OF HIS OWN.  & I hate McMurphy because it’s not MY McMurphy – it’s Jack’s.  & it’s not even that: it’s a poorly written Mac that Jack plays which is lauded as one of the defining anti-heroes of film… but it’s not even close.  Mac doesn’t exist for himself; he exists as some sort of self-congratulatory character without any life of his own.  He’s a parody of himself.  He’s not beloved.  I despise the cruelty movie!Mac shows what should be his pals.  I despise what Forman did to him.

Dorsky also describes the delicate situation of symbols in film.  Symbols are important to us – & they’ve existed in literature since… forever.  & when we create symbols in film [or in any media], we confirm ourselves; “we are confirming our own concepts of who we are and what the world is” (36).  But there is science in symbols.  Films can be burdened with “the realm of predetermined symbolic meaning,” as opposed to being more open – allowing things to be seen as they actually are (36).  Dorsky brought to mind two examples: one present in the film, one entirely erased. 

The first is the machine that Mac fails to pick up, but Chief succeeds in throwing out the window.  This, in the book & to some extent in the film, symbolizes Chief’s growth.  His muscles & “size” (another symbol, & one that would make Dorsky proud… if it had been tackled in the film… because it refers not only to his actual size in the frame and in his world, but also his agency, ability to fight against the Combine, & hope for the future) grow – because of McMurphy.  McMurphy’s goal is to get Chief to lift this baby off the ground, but also to come into himself.  Becauseonly Mac sees Chief’s true potential; he believes in him & sees thru the “deaf & dumb” act.  The movie removes a lot of Mac & Chief’s interactions & focus solely on YEAH HE DID IT HE’S FREE HE’S HIMSELF.  But it’s empty.  & what should be a celebration – because both Mac’s & Chief’s dreams have come true – is empty.  The symbol seems so forced & cliché with the heroic music.  It’s not allowed to exist for its own sake; it’s obvious that this “must” happen.  For me, there’s no magic.  &, according to Dorsky, “if a film fails to take advantage of the self-existing magic of things, if it uses objects merely to mean something, it has thrown away one of its great possibilities” (36).  Movies are cherished because they can mean so much in the now… but… this falls flat. 

The second symbol is something entirely erased from the film: Big Nurse & her association with orange.  She has orange nails & orange lips, so hot to the touch that they seer.  They are sensual, but branding… & all of it has been erased.  But, taking into account Dorsky’s critique, & taking into account how Forman mangled the rest of the film, I’m not sure incorporating Big Nurse’s orange would have saved her.  In fact, it probably would have made matters worse.  Instead of the orange being funny & iconic, they would have fallen flat.  They would be so obvious in their symbolism that we lose how important it is.  The machine was so hammered & forced… her lips would have been a gimmick, as opposed to a novelty characteristic about herself – something that really makes Nurse Ratched unique.  & instead of having images that are alive, revealing themselves to the audience & making magic, we have a sense of underwhelming emptiness (35).  Dorsky says that objects must be symbolic, “but at the same time, the [object] itself is seen as empty of meaning.  It rests in pure mystery and poignancy” (38).  If the Nurse’s orange fingers are everywhere & overemphasized, we lose that mystery; but if they dance in the frame, if they’re lingering one moment & the next they’re gone, placed strategically – we get that magic.  & if they’re angled in such a way that we feel that they’re searing into us – without the obvious searing sounds or even obvious marks on a characters skin, but just implied discomfort & stellar acting between the two parties… oh my.   Each symbol should be allowed to be “itself.  Each moment [should reveal] what it actually is” (36).  This is something so hard to balance, especially in a film… but again: she deserved better.  One of the most vicious villains in literary history was declawed by the film, so excuse me if I dare to say that the film’s portrayal was an insult to her.  I’m not scared of Fletcher’s Nurse Ratched.  I’m not inspired by Nicholson’s McMurphy.  & I don’t even see the Chief @ all.  But I’m the wrong one for not seeing the Award-winning magic?  I don’t think so.