One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Daniel Smith · September 20, 2006

Hi.

Just watched this film, loved it. I'd recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to go see it when given the chance.

But I just have a question. (Spoiler warning, if you've seen it already then just scroll down)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end, when Chief smothers Randle, what did they actually do to him? I'm presuming the guards beat him up badly causing him brain damage. Unless there's something I don't know about?

Thanks.

grantsmith · September 20, 2006

a lobotomy

September 20, 2006

Hi Daniel,

Got a great look too, don't you think? The whites seem to glow, really captures the feel of hospitaleque lighting, even though of course, it's a mental asylum, and I don't have much experience of those.

I think that Randle has been given a full frontal lobotomy, either that or he has been subjected to excessive electric shock treatment. There's that scene earlier in the film, were he shuffles back into the common room to see his comrades, after being taken away for treatment. I love that scene. Maybe they just gave him too much. Although I if I recall, there may be some kind of scar on his forehead.

Hope this clears up the enquiry.

All the best

Patrick King

PS: The book, if your'e interested, is entirely from the POV of the Chief. Ken Kesey, author of the novel, refused to watch the film ever. In fact, there is a small legend that one night, Ken Kesey was in a hotel room, flicking through the channels, when he became very interested in one late night film that was showing...until he witnessed the introduction of the Chief!

John Holland · September 20, 2006

Yes lobotomy ,hence part shaved head and nasty scar !! . john holland

Daniel Smith · September 20, 2006

Hi Daniel,

Got a great look too, don't you think? The whites seem to glow, really captures the feel of hospitaleque lighting, even though of course, it's a mental asylum, and I don't have much experience of those.

I think that Randle has been given a full frontal lobotomy, either that or he has been subjected to excessive electric shock treatment. There's that scene earlier in the film, were he shuffles back into the common room to see his comrades, after being taken away for treatment. I love that scene. Maybe they just gave him too much. Although I if I recall, there may be some kind of scar on his forehead.

Hope this clears up the enquiry.

All the best

Patrick King

PS: The book, if your'e interested, is entirely from the POV of the Chief. Ken Kesey, author of the novel, refused to watch the film ever. In fact, there is a small legend that one night, Ken Kesey was in a hotel room, flicking through the channels, when he became very interested in one late night film that was showing...until he witnessed the introduction of the Chief!

I've got admit for someone who's interested in cinematography, I wasn't actually paying close attention to it, but there was certainly nothing about it that made me think it was fake or that it didn't suit well. It had me fooled for sure.

I thought maybe a lobotomy, since as there were scars on either side of his forehead. And from what I know, in a lobotomy they cut out two sections of the brain from both the left and right side.

But, why would they do that? A lobotomy is meant to change their behaviour, but Randle just turned into a cabbage. For a place that is meant to help mental people, I would have thought that was the opposite from help. Unless it went wrong, or if they were getting their own back.

That's why I presumed that when they said he beat up two of the guards and escaped, maybe he did try beating them up but wasn't successful, and they beat him up instead. One of the security men did have a grudge against him.

And that's another thing, when he's receiving some form of treatment on the bed earlier on in the film, what treatment was that? I thought electric shock treatment to begin with, but one of the nurses is holding his head, so she would have gotten electrocuted herself if it was.

Unless, there was a few mistakes in the film. Which by no means makes the film any worse, in my opinion. Some of the best films I have seen still have a few mistakes. (Gladiator, Road to Perdition e.t.c.)

Thomas Fant · September 20, 2006

The filmmakers intention was probably to suggest a lobotomy, but by the time of this films setting, lobotomies were performed throught the nose, or even, and I know how preposterous this sounds, by a sort of ice pick through the eye socket. He could have received electroconvulsive therapy, which is disturbingly still in use, making a comeback even, I heard on npr.

Ignacio Aguilar · September 20, 2006

I've got admit for someone who's interested in cinematography, I wasn't actually paying close attention to it, but there was certainly nothing about it that made me think it was fake or that it didn't suit well. It had me fooled for sure.

This film had a difficult production, and three DPs worked on it. Haskell Wexler started the shooting, but he was fired by Milos Forman and the producers and was replaced by Bill Butler (Bulter ALSO replaced Wexler on "The Conversation" the previous year!). But Butler wasn't available to finish the film due to previous commitments, so William A. Fraker had to shot the last week.

I think that the look of the film is good and fits very well the story. Most of it looks pretty consistent, too, which is a good thing when you consider those circunstances. My only complaint would be the use of some diffusion filters (perhaps a mix of Mitchell diffusers, low-cons & corals) on some outdoor scenes (the basket game, the boat, etc), which make them a bit different from the rest of the picture. I believe Fraker shot them, as he was using these filter packs back them, but that's my guess based on his usual style.