The novel OFOTCN and its film adaptation are both exemplary texts encompassing and vividly showcasing key themes relevant to the time of their release, such as the movement towards deinstitutionalisation in the United States. Furthermore, despite the few but significant differences between the two texts, they both successfully tell a riveting story about the portrayal and treatment of patients in a psychiatric ward, and the social authority they were bound by. The most substantial difference between the film and written form of the text is the apparent significance of Chief Bromden’s character.
The novel is solely from the point of view of the Chief; a half-Indian patient who has been at the institution since the end of the Second World War and presents himself to be both deaf and mute. Furthermore, due to his diagnosed schizophrenia, he is often subject to hallucinations which can justifiably be seen as accentuated visions of his perspective on the ward. These hallucinations are a major element in the telling of the story throughout the novel and include how the chief sees the functioning of the ward as similar to that of a machine, which he refers to as The Combine.
The patients at the ward are, metaphorically, parts which need to be fixed or in other words, individuals who are unable to conform to the social norms and conventions. He is often subject to “fog” formations which, although not explicitly specified, may be a post-traumatic stress symptom of his time at war where fog machines were used in order to temporarily incapacitate or distract the minds of the enemy before an attack.
These fog formations in the ward evidently pose as an escape from free will, thought and gradually but surely numb the desire to question the ward’s uthority. This becomes progressively apparent, particularly when (Page 104) the Chief narrates how when he first came to the ward he tried to look beyond the fog, to think but then began to willingly immerse himself amongst it. The delve into the Chief’s past, whilst constituting a significant role in the novel, is absent in the film adaptation. The movie is from an outsider’s perspective and therefore lacks the visions and illusions of The Combine and fog.
However, this disregard of the Chief’s hallucinations and past in the film can be seen as a conscious artistic decision by director Milos Forman. The Chief has virtually no social interaction throughout the film, with the exception of the fishing trip where he says the words “Juicy Fruit”, a reference to a flavour of chewing-gum in the novel. This lack of social interaction would pose as a potential difficulty for the audience to follow the story without the complete narration of the Chief’s experience both during and prior to his admission in the ward.
Encompassing so much of the story in the time frame of a film medium would not have been possible without the extraction of other key elements of the film such as the ongoing feud of man versus machine and non-conformity, both of which were explored in depth throughout the film. Perhaps another reason for Forman’s focus on the character of Randle McMurphy was the fact that he admitted to having an admiration and interest in individuals who rebelled against status quo or conformity, having formerly lived in “totalitarian” societies in which the fear of going to prison was greater than the desire to make a stance.
McMurphy posed as such an individual, hence making a suitable protagonist. The portrayal of McMurphy is another significant difference between the two texts. In the novel, although he is debatably a hero-like figure, there are instances which showcase the rather objectionable aspects of his behaviour such as his numerous violent outbursts, his criminal past, and his short temper. An example of such an outburst can be seen can be witnessed from page 143-145 of the novel where in the span of hours, McMurphy unnecessarily lashes out at both
Harding and Martini with no specific reason. He is shown to holler and whilst shuffling, scatters a deck of cards in frustration. The film, although incorporating his criminal past and some of his violent outbursts such as the shattering of Nurse Ratched’s window, softens the negative parts of his behaviour and show McMurphy to be the true hero of the film; the one attempting to question the authority which binds the patients.
This may be due to the fact that as the significance of Chief’s character falls secondary to that of McMurphy’s in the film, it would be relatively more difficult for him to be seen as a questionable personality. A final substantial difference witnessed between the two texts is the impact of their endings on the audience. While the novel’s ending supplies its audience with a dose of realism regarding the future of the Chief, the film paints a picture of optimism.
In the novel, there is an incident absent from the film in which the Chief witnesses a dog sniffing gopher holes from the ward window. The dog is then distracted by a flock of geese forming a cross-like shape against the moon and proceeds to chase them towards a road. Through the sentence “I watched the dog and the car making for the same spot of pavement. ” (Page 129) it is implied that the dog will meet his tragic but inevitable death due to a collision with a vehicle. This can be seen as a metaphor for the way The Combine, or in general the machines will triumph over nature and its beings.
The Chief’s escape from the ward is similar to that of the dog which leaves the reader with a sense of uncertainty of his future but also with the lingering thought of the dog’s fate, how the fate of the Chief could potentially be similar and culminate in yet another triumph for the machines. On the other hand, in the film the Chief’s escape appears to be a symbol for hope and liberty and the audience is left with what one can assume is a positive assumption of his future with no memory of a dog and his presumably failed attempt to achieve freedom.
However, this approach compliments the film overall as it has a tendency to soften the relative negativity surrounding the themes in the novel as mentioned above with respect to McMurphy’s character. (link back to topic) Therefore, it can justifiably be stated that although there are a few significant differences between the novel of OFOTCN and its film adaptation, these differences are not without good reason.
For the absence of arguably vital aspects of novel in the film adaptation such as the lack of significance of Chief’s character, or the dog and the gopher incident, the film highlights and focuses on other key elements such as the essence of Randle McMurphy’s character and how he attempted to bring change to the ward. By doing this and creating McMurphy into such a heroic figure, the film inevitably had to soften the questionable aspects of his character.
