I read the book and then saw the movie. Inspite of a wonderful cast andgood acting, the movie missed the boat.
Kesey's characters are larger than life. The movie characters are ordinary.
One of the highlights of the book is the barroom brawl and all the characters coming together in the bar.
The film turned this into an off road race.
Hank Stamper is a superman. People who haven't read the book cannot really understand what is happening in the film.
I'm with you 100 percent. Just finished the book. Impossible to translate to film and actually capture the beauty, depth and intensity of the characters and their motivations. Read the book. Skip the movie. The characters are vivid enough on the page.
shareI agree with "Read the book," but don't agree with "Forget the movie." Like "Catch-22," Ken Kesey's epic novel is almost impossible to fully and satisfyingly translate onto film, although this was (like "Catch 22") a noble - and watchable - effort, with a great cast.
shareI think a sign of a great novel is its not being able to translate well to film. I'm reading it right now and didn't know the movie version existed until I started looking it up online. I will watch it after I finish reading and hope to be disappointed by the film, but also having the insight of the character development that I already have fresh in my mind from the book. About two-thirds of the way through at this moment.
shareThe novel is my favorite book of all time and I agree with everyone when they state the book is too difficult to film. The then unique multiple narratives of the story guarantee that those who love the book will not accept the movie. That said, Paul Newman made a valiant effort and the result is a decent movie with some memorable scenes, in particular Joe Ben's drowning sequence. Great job and a well deserved Oscar nomination for Richard Jaeckel. Newman's own assessment of the movie? He liked the movie and said it was one of his favorite roles.
My opinion of the movie reminds me of Victor McLaglen's line in Fort Apache:
"Well, I suppose it's better than no whiskey at'tal!"
Morons . . . I've got morons on my team!
I think it could be possible to film a decent version of the book, but its like the movie didn't even try. The main conflict of the book is Hank and Lee's butting of philosophy. Its just not there in the movie.
It also greatly annoyed me that the deadly likely suicidal log run was made to look downright pleasant.
yeah Gone with the wind.. epic movie, epic book.
shareI read the book, you should read the book. Even the printed word has ambiguity.
Likewise One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
I love Kesey's writing, even when it's erratic. Recommend Garage Sale and June the Goon , nice 'beat poetry' .
I thought I would like this film but alas I agree with most of all of you, but the drowning log scene was to stick in my mind for a lot longer than off the written page.
Ken Kesey .. A big man, possibly ...The Man
I'm the skunk at this garden party: I don't like the book. I find the writing style to be extremely masturbatory, undisciplined, self-indulgent. Kesey uses up _pages_ in establishing that a character has a sneeze that sounds like:
"hot SHlT" ... the old guy who went into the woods with a stack of porn to jerk himself to death ... moves the narration to the thoughts of a snake-bit dog ... and so on, padding the book ...just like Tom Robbins at his self-immersed, self-impressed worst. As a novel, I think Cuckoo's Nest is a darn sight better than Sometimes, and that the Newman film is superior to the Kesey novel. I live in Western Oregon and remember when both the movies were being filmed. Kesey had a natural touch for things Oregonian, but he should have imposed "a wholesome discipline" on himself while writing Sometimes.
It is a great movie whether it was faithful to the book or not. Kesey was high on drugs when he wrote the book and from what I understand it is obvious to the reader. 600 pages of weirdness. If people like that then that is fine for them. That doesn't diminish the straightforward message of this movie.
shareAgreed. No-one posting here is doing so because they saw the movie...the book is great art for many, and justifiably so but the best the movie can be is an interesting interpretation of a much more compelling book.
shareKesey did NOT write when he was high, at least not those days. Sometimes a Great Notion had nothing to do with his experimentation with psychedelics. That came later, with the Furthur trip. The novel is a pure Faulknerian paean to the Northwest. If you haven't read Faulkner or Wolfe, the novel will probably be over your head. It's a novel as complex as Lolita or Gravity's Rainbow, only more immediately readable.
shareLolita is totally, entirely, immediately readable. Gravity's Rainbow - eh, not so much.
shareThey are two different art forms and both deserve their recognition. A movie has to tell a story in 2 hours and they picked the important plot points needed for that. I do wish the movie could have the feel the book had, though -- Leland was pretty messed up when he got there -- depressed and suicidal and often high, far more lost than it appears from his description of his suicide attempt in the film. We are inside his head in the book -- just like we are inside Chief's head in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest -- and it's pretty weird in there.
I have read the book twice, and both times, it took 70 pages just to know what's going on. You have to be open to that, 70 pages of seemingly randomness until it gels. You just have to be willing to go along for the ride and enjoy the scenery. (Ditto Cloud Atlas.) Yes, it's complex, but so is what goes through people's heads. One of the greatest American novels of all time made into a pretty good movie.
----
"Don't make me kill you again."
Peckinpah was rumored to be the director, but for some reason, it didn't happen. Could have been much better. I don't see Newman as very talented, just a face who got so many great roles/movies.
shareDoes the book have "that scene"? Seems like it was the whole reason to make the movie in the first place.
Great popular novels generally don't make great movies. The Godfather is an exception to the rule -- the movie was better, and part of the book was saved for Godfather II(well, nobody knew there would BE a Godfather II, but it was available.}
---
Peckinpah was rumored to be the director, but for some reason, it didn't happen. Could have been much better. I don't see Newman as very talented, just a face who got so many great roles/movies.
--
For all his fame, Peckinpah didn't get to direct a few movies that he WANTED to direct: Deliverance was one; Play It As it Lays was another. I think Emperor of the North Pole, too.
On the other hand, Peter Bogdanovich was set to direct The Getaway, but Peckinpah ended up with that job. Steve McQueen didn't want to work with Bogdo's babe, Cybill Shepard.