riserius1 explained it perfectly. Are you really that obtuse, or are you just trying to pick a fight? If you think that deliberately reducing mental patients to stuttering wrecks is noble, then I suggest that the whole point of the movie is proably lost on you anyway.
“If you think that deliberately reducing mental patients to stuttering wrecks is noble…”
Um no. I want evidence from the film that she is deliberately out to harm the patients. Repeating again and again how the movie does such a brilliant job of showing this doesn’t count.
“riserius1 explained it perfectly”
Hardly. All he does is assert that she deliberately acts to wreck Bill without providing any evidence.
CyberPundit, perhaps you need to stick to watching movies that require less of the audience. You might like 101 Dalmations.
Those kind of pathetic cheapshots only highlight your inability to provide any evidence or reasoning to back your interpretation.
Why was she so evil: coldhearted adherence to ill-conceived rules,like the vote to watch the baseball game. She went along with it, knowing she would “win” the whole time, because half the ward is catatonic. She had rigged the game to win - if it was to be fair, the “Raise your hand if you want to watch the game” should be compared with “Raise your hand if you don’t want to watch the game.” He couldn’t fight her.
It’s also a great commentary on the mental health system - once you’re labelled “crazy,” you’re crazy for good, and everything you do is judged in such a light. She treated the men like children, their humanity stripped away in cold and patronizing fashion by the Nurse. They were not working towards a cure, they were working towards subduing the men, turning them into complacent zombies who fit the state’s definition of “insane.”
The most recent time I saw the film I was struck mostly by the pessimism of it - you can’t fight the system (Conformity), because even if the Nurse wasn’t there, there would be someone else there to enforce the rules. McMurphy’s actions were self-interested, sure, but he was also trying to inject a little humanity back into the other patients, which is why he can be seen as a “hero” of sorts. And his attempts roundly failed - not because he was wrong, though, in any sense except that he was challenging The System. He helped the men realize that they could again be a little bit human, and then the Nurse managed to show him how incorrect that is. The climax of the movie was him succeeding in making the men feel human again - hooray ! victory ! joy ! a laudable goal for certain - and the Nurse (or, Conformity) still has the ultimate upper hand.
Cyberpundit:
part of what makes Nurse scary is that she does believe she is motivated by the patients’ best interests. It is clear from two points which have already been mentioned that this is not the case.
One is the baseball game scene, where she happily ignores the patients’ stated wishes. Also see her threats to Billy as re: his mother - is this how you would treat a mental patient? How can you defend your statement that this is not a harmful thing to do?
It’s my belief that the people who believe they are doing the right thing are the most dangerous.
Even if you believe that Nurse Ratchett’s methods don’t work that doesn’t really make her a villain unless she is deliberately out to harm her patients. It is precisely this intent which the film fails to establish IMO.
As for the two examples you give I don’t think they really show that her methods don’t work. It’s not as if the film provides us with detailed case-histories of the patients. For example Billy may have become momentarily more confident after sleeping with the woman but that hardly means that this would solve any long-term problems he might have. Considering that the patients had totally trashed the place and massively broken the rules it was natural that Nurse Ratchett wanted to re-assert her authority. This doesn’t necessarily mean that she was out to deliberately destroy Billy which many people here have just assumed.
Sorry, not interested in wasting my time with someone who argues only for the sake of argument. Good bye.
Jesus, CyberPundit, you didn’t understand the movie, fine. Move on with your life.
So you didn’t get something that a large majority of filmgoers at the time found obvious, and you still don’t see it decades later, even though it’s well established as a classic film. That’s fine. But do you have to demonstrate your ignorance in such a public, argumentative fashion?
“Argues only for the sake of argument”? Huh? You are just spouting any random rubbish that comes to your mind in lieu of an actual argument. Anyway goodbye; I can assure you your “contributions” won’t be missed.
Like I said I don’t really care much about the film and it doesn’t bother me if people have a different interpretation and a different estimate of its value. The concept of polite disagreement appears to be foreign to a few posters though.
“Jesus, CyberPundit, you didn’t understand the movie, fine. Move on with your life.”
Actually your advice is better given to posters on the other side. All I did was express my opinion of the film; rather politely I think. Apparently this was too much for some posters and they had to resort to a series of personal attacks and even a threat of a Pitting to which I responded. Pretty pathetic ,if you ask me, as is the notion that someone who disagrees with you about a film doesn’t “understand the movie”.
Louise Fletcher was one of the most deserving actresses to win an oscar, ever.
Skating up to the edge of Godwin here, I suppose, but would you argue that the Good Germans who did what they were told and followed orders are above criticism unless they were motivated by a desire to inflict harm?
Sorry, I have to disagree. Ratched and her real-life parallels are evil and dangerous precisely because they believe in the rightness of what they do, to the point that they are deadened to the possibility of observing what they are actually doing.
There are doctors out there still doing lobotomies. Intentionally destroying healthy brain tissue in order to obtain more compliant and more easily managed mental patients, despite the likelihood of a a plummet in intelligence and an overall flattening of emotional intensity. Or maybe because of that likelihood. Either way, the scary thing is that they believe they are practicing medicine. They believe that they are acting in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath. Frankly I find that a whole lot creepier than Hannibal Lecter, especially since we don’t have large officially-supported institutions with folks like Lecter authorized to Eat You For Your Own Good, but people like Ratched operate with the mantle of state power vested upon them.
It’s been a while since I saw OFOTCN, but this thread is making me want to go back and watch it again.
I don’t mean to contribute to a pile-on, but I found this film to be one of the best films I’ve ever seen. I always enjoy films that have enough respect for their audience to not feed them the happy ending, but this one I found particularly moving.
Something that AHunter3 and others have mentioned is what I think makes Nurse Ratched so scary: the fact that there are so many people like her in the real world. She’s the kind of person who’s exercised complete control over her patients for so long that she’s come to believe that it’s her divine right to rule over their lives. There are many people like this who might have started out their career caring about people, but they get so entrenched in the bureaucracy and pure power of their position that they completely lose sight of the human beings whose lives they’re affecting. If someone comes along and challenges their way of doing things, they take it as a personal challenge to their power, and they only become more ruthless in how they exercise it.
So, yes, she’s far scarier than Hannibal Lecter and other purely evil villains because of the simple fact that she is so real. Most people who watch this film will “recognize” Nurse Ratched because they’ve encountered this kind of personality at some point in their real life. Maybe you haven’t, but if you have, it’s hard to see how anyone could regard Nurse Ratched with anything but loathing.
Hm. I think I will re-watch the movie again this weekend with my GF, who I don’t believe has seen it. It’ll be interesting to see how her impression compares with those that are being expressed in this thread.
I think a lot of people need to chill the hell out. I wasn’t picking a fight, I was asking questions. I was restating my interpretation of CyberPundit’s questions about the movie. I made it clear in post #1 that I hadn’t seen the movie and that I was asking for others’ opinions about it.
What I hadn’t expected was that so many people would be so goddamn defensive of their opinions that they woud be unwilling to discuss it on a discussion board. Instead, they find a poster with a differing opinion and choose to either insult his intelligence, or call him a monster or a Nazi (!!! wtf?), and/or threaten to “pit” him.
Somebody needs to chill, allright, and it’s not us.:rolleyes:
First of all, you need to take care in your attributions. I am NOT the author of the quote you put my name on. You should have deleted the part that says “Blowero wrote”.
Second, AHunter3 threatened to pit CyperPundit, not I. So if you have a problem with that, kindly address it to him.
Third, you MISSED MOST OF THE MOVIE. Quite a few people eagerly tried to explain what the movie was about, as per your request, and all you could do was argue with them, I guess because you’re mad at AHunter3? So you’re mad at him - why the hell did you have to take it out on everyone else? Instead of thanking the kind people for generously explaining a movie to you that you obviously can’t be bothered to watch all the way through, you take sides with the ONE other person who didn’t understand it, and start getting combative with everyone.
Frankly, you’re acting like an ass.
And another thing - they’re not defensive about their opinions, they’re just bugged because you’re arguing about parts of the movie you DIDN’T EVEN SEE. If you didn’t see it, how can you have an opinion?
Aren’t you done explaining/not explaining OFOTCN to Sol Grundy yet? :dubious:
Wow! I’m amazed I had the chance to post in this weird thread before a moderator (see-it-coming) intervention!
I must say, this is quite an interesting thread. Not to insult anyone here, but I think Sol and Cyberpundit have actually been a lot more reasonable in this thread than many of the people defending OFOTCN. It isn’t even like they’re insulting the movie, they just didn’t like it, which is, you know, okay. If you like the movie, who cares what anyone else thinks? Some people seem to be taking Sol and Cyberpundit’s reaction to the film personally and I really don’t get why, except inasmuch as “great” films tend to polarize the audience, and those who love them tend to take them very seriously and can get a bit heated when anyone suggests the movie isn’t as great as they believe it is . . .
At any rate, the problem with Cyber’s request that someone give him absolute proof that Nurse Ratched is a bad person (I don’t wanna say evil because, in this film as in real life, there are no absolutes) is that there is no absolute proof. Just about everything she does can be interpreted in different ways.
What she does to Billy and, later, to McMurphy can be viewed as the callous acts of a person who cares more for exerting her influence over the patients in her care than for actually caring for them, or can be viewed as the unintentionally hurtful acts of a person doing her job in the best way she knows how, her own stubborness blinding her to the fact that she doesn’t do her job very well.
As much as I love the film, I myself have trouble seeing Ratched as a flat out villain as so many do. I see her more as a woman who, with unintentional cruelty, exerts her influence over her patients because it’s all she can do, as she doesn’t have the first clue about actually helping them. So, Cyberpundit has a valid point, and acknowledging that doesn’t diminish my enjoyment of the film in any way and I have no desire to bash him.
Imagine that.