Talk:One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject United States / American Cinema (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.
 
WikiProject Library of Congress (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

External links[edit]

The guidelines identify one kind of links normally to be avoided: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Do the TCM, Allmovie, or Filmsite provide a unique resource to the article? As for the Ebert links, this says, "Professional reviews should instead be used as sources in a 'Reception' section." Thus, the Ebert links can be incorporated into the article. We can place all removed external links here for future reference by others. Erik (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are not requirements. You seem to have appointed yourself the arbiter of what goes and what stays. How are any of the sites removed any better, or worse, then the oft maligned IMDb which was left in. As to professional reviews if you are not going to incorporate them into the article how is anyone to know they exist. Deleting is so easy and gets ones edit count up. Going the extra step of making as much info available to the reader as possible is not as easy but it would double ones edit count. In my opinion (POV I know) wikipedia should be a good place to start to learn about a given subject. Having multiple external links on each film page causes the reader to return here after perusing each external link before moving onto the next one. Your removal of so many possibilities means that it will be better for them to go to google to find the variety of places to go. Driving readers away is always a dicey proposition. One last thing, I know that you do lots of good work here and are a thoughtful editor - since you removed these items from numerous film articles I feel that you should move this discussion to the filmprojects talk page for wider discussion. MarnetteD | Talk 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
We can discuss IMDb's viability as an external link as well, but my opinion is that it is too entrenched to warrant discussion at this time. For this article's external links, they can be placed on this talk page. It's a practice that's gaining. For example, I put resources to use at Talk:Moon (film)#Headlines. The "External links" section is supposed to be a place to add unique resources. Since the film article can cover a lot, very few links are qualified to be placed there. You mention driving readers away; would they not be driven away because the external links take them away from Wikipedia when Wikipedia could very well contain information implemented from these links? That is why we avoid link farms; the goal is to provide readers with content in the article body. External links are purely supplementary to this content; they are not meant to hang out in a queue, waiting to be implemented. Erik (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Many good points and thanks for the info. I see that some of this is being discussed on the filmproject page - at least as far as AMG is concerned. I do have one suggestion. If there are links to any reviews that are useful - and you aren't going to take the time to add them to the reception section - would it be possible to transfer them to the talk page under a header like "Removed from external links per guidelines - please add to reception section if you care to do so" or some such (I imagine that you could come up with something shorter :-).) That way if there is an editor, current or future, who cares about a page they will have a chance to do the work necessary. I just throw this out there as a suggestion. If you find it unworkable than so be it. MarnetteD | Talk 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I would rather keep Allmovie visible, but I do not know enough about quickly removing the link from the article and adding it to the talk page with a note on usage. Maybe AWB? I'm not too familiar with it... I've done way too much manually during my time here. Erik (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not mean AMG. I meant "professional reviews" like you mentioned above. Things like the Roger Ebert reviews on this films page. I am sorry that I was not clearer. As to how to do it I am a computer program ignoramus and do everything manually also (which always makes chasing vandals a slower process!) Maybe there aren't too many reviews worth keeping but those that are should have some kind of chance to be saved. I hope. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rosenham Experiment[edit]

It would probably be relevant to work in some reference to the Rosenhan experiment into the article. While the novel is older than the experiment, the movie would probably never have been filmed without the public focus on the experiment.

Do you have a source for your speculation that "the movie would probably never have been filmed without the public focus on the experiment." If so, go ahead and add it. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Cresix (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pleased with the Plot section?[edit]

Is everyone okay with the Plot section of this article? There are many little phrases that make it long—and some that make it wrong. I'm posting this starting point here in hopes we can make the Plot section of the article a little tighter—and more accurate.

In 1963 Oregon, Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson), a recidivist criminal serving a short sentence on a prison farm for statutory rape, is transferred to a mental institution for evaluation. He hopes to avoid hard labor and serve the rest of his sentence in a more relaxed environment. Although he is anti-authoritarian with a history of violence, McMurphy exhibits no overt signs of mental illness.

McMurphy's ward is run by steely, unyielding Nurse Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who employs subtle humiliation, unpleasant medical treatments and a mind-numbing daily routine to suppress the patients. McMurphy finds that they are more fearful of Ratched than they are focused on becoming functional in the outside world. McMurphy establishes himself immediately as the leader; his fellow patients include Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif), a nervous, stuttering young man; Charlie Cheswick (Sydney Lassick), a man disposed to childish fits of temper; Martini (Danny DeVito), who is delusional; Dale Harding (William Redfield), a high-strung, well-educated paranoid; and "Chief" Bromden (Will Sampson), a silent six-foot-seven Native American believed to be deaf and mute.

McMurphy's and Nurse Ratched's battle of wills escalates rapidly. When McMurphy's card games win away everyone's cigarettes, Ratched confiscates the cigarettes and rations them out. McMurphy calls for votes on ward policy changes to challenge her, and organizes a pickup game of basketball against the orderlies. He makes a show of betting the other patients he can escape by lifting an old hydrotherapy console—a massive marble plumbing fixture—off the floor and sending it through the window; when he fails to do so, he turns to them and says, "At least I tried."

McMurphy steals a hospital bus, herds his colleagues aboard, stops to pick up Candy (Marya Small), a party girl, and takes the group on a deep sea fishing trip. On the boat he tells them: "You're not nuts, you're fisherman!" and they begin to feel faint stirrings of self-determination. Soon after, however, McMurphy learns that Ratched and the doctors have the power to keep him committed indefinitely. Sensing a rising tide of insurrection among the group, Ratched tightens her grip on everyone.

During one of Ratched's group humiliation sessions, Cheswick's agitation boils over and he, McMurphy, and the Chief wind up brawling with the orderlies. They are sent up to the "shock shop" for electroconvulsive therapy. While McMurphy and the Chief wait their turn, McMurphy offers Chief a piece of gum, and Chief murmurs "Thank you". McMurphy is delighted to find the Chief is neither deaf nor mute, and discovers that he shares his distaste of the hospital establishment but stays silent to deflect attention. After the electroshock therapy, McMurphy shuffles back onto the ward feigning catatonia, before humorously animating his face and loudly greeting his fellow patients, assuring everyone that the ECT only charged him up all the more and that the next woman to take him on will "light up like a pinball machine and pay off in silver dollars."

But the struggle with Ratched is taking its toll, and with his release date no longer a certainty, McMurphy plans an escape. He phones Candy to bring booze and her friend Rose (Louisa Moritz) to the hospital late one night. They enter through a window after McMurphy bribes the night orderly, Mr. Turkle (Scatman Crothers). McMurphy and Candy invite the patients into the day room for a party; the group breaks into the drug locker, puts on music, and enjoys a bacchanalian rampage. At the end of the night, McMurphy and Chief prepare to leave with the girls by climbing out through the window. McMurphy says goodbye to everyone, and invites an emotional Billy to escape with them; he declines, saying he is not yet ready to leave the hospital—though he would like to date Candy in the future. McMurphy insists Billy have sex with Candy right then and there, and Billy (and Candy) agree. They retire to a private room. The effects of the alcohol and pilfered medication take their toll on everyone, including McMurphy and the Chief, whose eyes slowly close in fatigue.

Nurse Ratched arrives the next morning and discovers the scene: the ward completely upended and patients passed out all over the floor. She orders the attendants to lock the window, clean up, and conduct a head count. When they find Billy and Candy, the other patients applaud and, buoyed, Billy speaks for the first time without a stutter. Nurse Ratched then announces that she will tell Billy's mother what he has done. Billy panics, his stutter returns, and he starts punching himself in the crotch; locked in the doctor's office, he kills himself. McMurphy, enraged at Nurse Ratched, chokes her nearly to death until orderly Washington knocks him out.

After some time has passed, the patients in the ward play cards and gamble for cigarettes as before, only now with Harding dealing and delivering a pale imitation of McMurphy's patter. Nurse Ratched, still recovering from the neck injury sustained during McMurphy's attack, wears a neck brace and speaks in a thin, reedy voice. The patients pass a whispered rumor that McMurphy dramatically escaped the hospital rather than being taken "upstairs".

Late that night, Chief Bromden sees McMurphy being escorted back to his bed, and initially believes that he has returned so they can escape together— which he is now ready to do since McMurphy has made him feel "as big as a mountain". However, when he looks closely at McMurphy's unresponsive face, he is horrified to see lobotomy scars on his forehead. Unwilling to allow McMurphy to live in such a state—or be seen this way by the other patients—the Chief smothers McMurphy with his pillow. He then carries out McMurphy's escape plan by lifting the hydrotherapy console off the floor and hurling the massive fixture through a grated window, climbing through and running off into the distance.

As I said, it's a starting point.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I replace the existing "Plot" section with this one above?—HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Obviously this page is not on many watchlists anymore. At this brief moment I have no big objections to the transfer of this version but you should be ready for others to remove plot points that you thought that you were shortening the article and they think are too much detail. MarnetteD | Talk 06:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for responding MarnetteD—I'm glad someone's watching! I would hope that people do trim it up. I did a quick trim myself. Thanks again.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Copied revision into article (with several more minor trims). I left the old version there, hidden, until everyone is satisfied.—HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed[edit]

It is my understanding that in the novel we are never told the setting of the events occurring in the book, but this article states that the novel took place at the same mental institution that was used for the filming of the movie. I think this is false. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would investigate. Ebmonkey2 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Juicy Fruit[edit]

Chief actually mumbles "Thanks" after being handed the gum. McMurphy hands him a second piece in an attempt to get him to say something else, and that's when Chief says "Juicy Fruit," proceeded by a conversation between the two. I don't know if anyone cares to edit this tidbit in, under "Plot." At current, it's not exactly factual. -- Charles Stover 08:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ran at cinema in Sweden for 11 years?[edit]

Stumbled upon a link to this article, mentioning the film's record run at the cinemas in Stockhom, Sweden. Now that fact has been deleted, as it was unsourced.

The film was shown in Swedish cinemas for nearly 11 years – between early 1976 and winter of 1986/1987 – which is still a record. When Forman learned this, he said, "I'm absolutely thrilled by that... It's wonderful."[citation needed]

However, here is a source for at least part of the deleted paragraph... Whether it's still a record, or what Forman's litteral reaction was isn't cited, but according to the linked source the movie was shown for 573 weeks (until 1987). Might be an interesting trivia fact for the article.

Differences between Movie and Novel[edit]

I really don't care that the section detailing this (which did have a link to a source, unlike what the deleter says) was deleted, since I rewrote it slowly and sold it to a content farm. BUT there should be a section. Other movies adapted from novels have such sections, and some of them have no footnotes (attributions) at all. Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary sentences[edit]

I noticed that in the plot there is some dialogue actually quoted. In all, save for one instance, the dialogue is completely unnecessary and should be removed.216.58.83.16 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Awards and Honors[edit]

I added a finish to this sentence which was promptly removed - even though the link is provided, the sentence gives a brief summary. As it was deleted, the sentence is actually incomplete, even without punctuation. I think that the sentence was accurate and should be returned because of felicitousness.

Either way, the current correction should be, itself, edited to conform to grammatic standards.

AS IS: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards at the 48th Oscar ceremony

AS PROPOSED: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards at the 48th Oscar ceremony, one of only three films to achieve such a feat, the other two being It Happened One Night (1934) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).


goej (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We don't need all of the names of the other films in that section - it just clutters things up. A) adding them is WP:OR B) The names of the films is not relevant to this article. C) It is relevant at the article about those that have won the "big 5" and we have a link to the article about their winning the awards for readers who want to know their names. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
OK aside from my first message the item did not belong above the table. I have moved the relevant link into the section above where the 48th Oscar awards were already mentioned. BTW I am not sure what this word (felicitousness) is supposed to be. Also the grammar here "won all of the "Big Five" Academy Awards" is a bit dodgy as it says the same thing twice. MarnetteD|Talk 04:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)