One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

the problem i have with jack nicholson in general is that whatever role he plays hes always jack nicholson. he doesnt seem to be able to disappear into the role. hes the reason i havent seen the film.

I'm not so sure about that. I.e, have you seen the movie 'The Passenger'? That character is nothing like Randall McMurphy. And neither is his character in Easy Rider - George Hanson - anything like his characters in 'Chinatown', or 'The Crossing Guard', e.t.c.

I agree that he often just phones it in. But I like him a lot in Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces. A Few Good Men is kind of hammy but I think it's a good example of him playing Nicholson and doing it effectively.

hedonist wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

I agree that he often just phones it in. But I like him a lot in Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces. A Few Good Men is kind of hammy but I think it's a good example of him playing Nicholson and doing it effectively.

Maybe when you've got those crazy eyes it's hard to escape the persona.

I can't imagine anyone else doing what he did in the Shining

Tom Crusie?

Who Princess wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

Had to read the book in both high school and college and just loved it. Didn't much like the movie though.

The book and the movie are different in many ways. Though I'm not sure if they could have produced a film that was too faithful to the book. The book is mostly too subjective and hallucinatory to be adapted to the screen. Though maybe it could have worked with a narration by Chief Bromden?

http://www.gradesaver.com/one-flew-over ... ide/about/
'Kesey originally was involved at the creative and production levels of the film, but he left two weeks into filming because he disagreed about dropping Chief Bromden's narration, because he objected to the casting of Jack Nicholson in the lead role (he wanted Gene Hackman), and because of a dispute over the $20,000 he was owed for the film rights. Kesey later would claim he never saw the film. Even so, his wife has said he generally supported the film and was pleased that it had been made.'

I wonder why Kesey preferred Gene Hackman to Jack Nicholson?

They are very different but I didn't know until recently that Kesey was unhappy with the movie. I think I didn't like it so much because I felt like the book was making a statement about society and the movie was a narrative about people in a mental institution. Sorry, I guess it's just the English major in me.

I don't know why he didn't think Nicholson was right for the role of McMurphy. Most people probably can't imagine the part any other way by now. I think Gene Hackman is a versatile actor and probably underrated since he's appeared in so many films. When I first saw the film I remember thinking Nicholson was a little too out there in his portrayal.

I didn't hate the movie. It just didn't make an impression on me the way the book did.

I like the movie but the book made the bigger impression on me as well. For me, the book stands above all adaptations because it creates a movie in my mind that can't be reproduced on screen. I also saw the ACT performance in San Francisco a few time when it first came out in (if I remember correctly) 1970. Those early productions were amazing and the cast was outstanding. I'll never forget the one actor who stood for the entire performance night after night leaning against a wall quivering slightly with his arms spread out as though crucified with drool running from is mouth down the front of his shirt the whole time. Touches like that made these performances very real and very effective.