Nurse Ratched was bad, but Mcmurphy wasn't a hero either. - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) Discussion

[–] Adebesi 9 years ago

Of course McMurphy wasnt perfect, I think introducing him as a statutory rapist sets the context that he is a flawed human being, he is clearly immature and impulsive and reckless. He is charismatic but deserves to be doing time. You are not supposed to feel him being locked up is a miscarriage of justice.

But I dont think there is much reason to sympathise with Nurse Ratched. I found her treatment of her patients sadistic. The group therapy sessions were quite clearly ritual humiliations. Even her preventing McMurphy from going back to prison was malicious, given he would have finished his sentence quickly if he had gone back, whereas while he was under her care his incarceration was at her discretion.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

"You are not supposed to feel him being locked up is a miscarriage of justice. "

Literally directly below your comment:

"I think he's a hero.

I admire him.

I don't think he did anything wrong."

reply

[–] Sequentialist 8 years ago

I think he's a hero.

I admire him.

I don't think he did anything wrong.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

He raped a teenager, so there's that. Broke a bunch of mental patients out of a mental hospital, broke "in" a bunch of hookers and booze, directly resulting in the death of one patient. But sure...nothing.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4836) 2 years ago

"He raped a teenager"

No, he didn't. The term used was "statutory rape." If he'd raped her they would have said he raped her, obviously.

The movie is set in Oregon, and it's said that she was 15 years old. Suppose it was the day before she turned 16. That would mean that if he and the girl had waited until the next day it would have been perfectly legal. Is there any meaningful difference between legal and illegal in such a case? Obviously not.

Before anyone says that the age of consent in Oregon is 18; this movie is set in 1963, at which time the age of consent in Oregon was 16, the same as it is in most other US states to this day, including their neighbor to the north, Washington, and their neighbor to the southeast, Nevada. Oregon changed it to 18 in 1971.

reply

[–] kennellygerard 8 years ago

he knew he'd be safer in a hospital than prison so he acted crazy

we all know what happens to pedophiles in prison

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

Ratched is mean, but McMurphy is a piece of shit for all the reasons you state. I actually think this movie is a failure at what it is trying to do. It's so fucking caught up in being anti-establishment, that it attempts to pass a sociopath off as our hero

Here, we've got a guy who FAKED mental illness to AVOID A RAPE CHARGE, broke a bunch of psych patients out of a mental hospital because he wanted to get some air, and then proceeded to do the same thing again - only in reverse - when he brought the booze and hookers INTO the hospital - which is what actually what led to Billy's death - because he wanted to paarty. If McMurphy doesn't do this, Billy is alive. Billy was weak. He was so afraid of his own mother that her threatening to tell his mom so much, he killed himself. If McMurphy doesn't break the rules, this doesn't happen. Oh, then he tries to MURDER Ratched because he doesn't have the balls to take responsibility for his role in Billy's death. He is no hero. This movie is about two villains, but thinks it's some kind of "damn the man" war cry.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 4 years ago

I think you need to watch the movie again because you didn’t understand the message at all… either that or you’re brain-damaged, or you’re just a bootlicker

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 4 years ago

No one who says bootlicker can be taken seriously.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

Billy's death was Ratched's fault.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Was it Ratched who brought the booze and hookers in?

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

It was her who made a big deal out of the guys getting the only sex they were likely to.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Was it Ratched who brought the booze and hookers in? Or the one who broke the patients out earlier in the movie?

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

No - that was Macmurphy .He wanted to give the guys a good time

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

No, he wanted to give HIMSELF a good time; just like he did when he fucked a 15 year old.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

With her consent, I believe.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Yes, he committed statutory rape, that is correct. He would then fake insanity because he was a pussy and couldn't do hard time that came along with his crimes.

He then broke out of a state hospital with multiple mentally ill patients, putting many lives in danger and did the same thing again when he brought the hookers and booze in. He attacked multiple staff members, including Ratched; whom he tried to murder. FUCK. HIM.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

The whole book and movie were a sort of gloss on the etnernal conflict between order and chaos, with Ratched representing order and McMurphy representing chaos. The sympathies of author Ken Kesey were entirely with McMurphy and chaos, he equated the male principle/male sexuality with freedom and the overthrowing of order and authority, and equated the female principle with stifling authoritarianism, to a degree that made me sympathize with any woman involved with him in real life.

He didn't get than neither order nor chaos should ever win their eternal battle, that too much order in a civilization means authoritarianism, and too much chaos means anarchy, and either extreme is a wretched place to live. So ended up disliking both McMurphy and Ratched, even if McMurphy seemed pretty fun for a while.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Are you me from another timeline? Because I've made this post over the years on both this site and IMDB.

Don't forget he broke them out of the facility, stole a bus, and took them on a boat. Could have gotten them killed. That was after he slept with a minor and before he brought the hooker and booze in. Then of course he tried to commit murder.

Unfortunately they are not (adolescents). Many adults, even more so in modern times, are a part of that paranoid anti-authority mindset. It's increased even more so since this movie came out, especially the last few years. People who subscribe to this are paranoid and immature, but adolescents? Sadly, no.

reply

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7969) 3 years ago

McMurphy was corrupt but Ratchett was a corrupt evil woman who wasn't going to help anyone. I don't get how you can think she was a good person. The first group therapy scene shows this. Harding's problems with his wife should not be talked about with the whole group. Not to mention she allows them to argue and yell at each other. That does not help anyone. She has a smile on her face while they are yelling at each other. She delights in harming those men mentally.

The book and movie are intended to show that mental health proffessionals in the 50s and 60s abused their patients. Like the electro shock therapy scene. Electro shock therapy was immoral and everyone who used it was a sadist.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13134) 3 years ago

Thank you. I really wanted to lay into some of these people for their moralistic attacks on McMurphy. But I'm relaxing after work and don't have the energy right now. Lol.

Yeah, McMurphy is not perfect. But this movie is about how mental health professionals dehumanize patients. McMurphy teaches them to enjoy life again.

OMFG, we're seeing self righteous indignation at the hookers being brought in! I can't believe it! At least the young lad lost his virginity. That's worth nothing to most the prigs on this thread though.

Good gawd almighty.

But yeah, 90% of the people on this thread are idiots.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"I really wanted to lay into some of these people for their moralistic attacks on McMurphy."

Shut up.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13134) 3 years ago

I think you need a lobotomy, quite frankly.

"Cuckoo's Nest" was about abuse in the mental healthcare industry, not whether or not McMurphy was going to heaven.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Why are you defending a pedophile this hard?

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13134) 3 years ago

I'm defending a lovable Jack Nicholson character.

McMurphy didn't act like a pedophile in the film. If that's your objection to him, you miss the whole point of the story.

The point here was to show the dehumanization of psychiatric patients.

McMurphy was a free spirit who was lobotomized to crush him. Do you not see that angle?

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"McMurphy didn't act like a pedophile in the film."

He literally slept with a minor.....

And you describe him as lovable.

reply

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (13134) 3 years ago

Dude, if McMurphy had been a saint the whole point of story would have been lost.

They had to give the character an odious background. That was the whole point.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

" I don't get how you can think she was a good person."

I don't recall saying that.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Bottom line, to me, is that only a monster would authorize a labotomy to be done. IMO Ratched was a monster.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Sleeping with a minor is cool though.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Wow, I wouldn't go around admitting that so freely if I were you! Maybe keep your perversions to yourself.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

McMurphy did just that. Then faked mental illness to get out of the prison sentence. That's how he ended up in the mental hospital.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Yeah, I know, I've seen the movie more than once. That does not justify a labotomy FFS! Ratched was a monster! We can agree to disagree, not a problem.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Do you? Because you accused me of it.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Accused you??? You stated "Sleeping with a minor is cool though." You said it, I didn't accuse you of anything, I just responded to what you said. Perhaps your phrasing was awkward but you did say it's cool. If you're saying your phrasing was awkward, and that's not what you meant, then OK, it happens.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Who slept with a minor? What movie's message board are we on? Idiot.

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Hahahahaha! You are hysterical! Now you're name calling, like a little child! I've been civil this whole time, mistakenly thinking I'm dealing with an adult. You're so funny!!!

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"I've been civil this whole time"

LOL!!!!

"Wow, I wouldn't go around admitting that so freely if I were you! Maybe keep your perversions to yourself."

reply

[–] jcnyclv (1633) 3 years ago

Because YOU said "Sleeping with a minor is cool though." Not a question, YOU MADE A STATEMENT. And, as I said, if you phrased it awkwardly - which obviously you did and it's not what you meant - it happens. It's no big deal.

I'm not going to go on and on like this, it's very, very silly. I hope you have a great day.

reply

[–] capuchin (3358) 3 years ago

The movie clearly wants us to side with mcmurphy

I wouldn't say clearly. It's hardly the Empire versus the Rebel Alliance, is it? It's not a children's film. It's a film with moral ambiguities and character complexities in it.

Yes, ultimately, it's a 1960s counterculture 'individual against the system, maaaan', story but I don't think I ever considered McMurphy to be a hero any more than I did Alex DeLarge.

Indeed, I think A Clockwork Orange and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest share some similar themes. Both these men can be 'cured' through medical science. Both films ask 'Is that moral?' One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest does, I think, answer the question for the viewer and says 'No, it isn't' whereas Kubrick leaves the question open.

So, yes, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest sides with McMurphy against Ratched and the system she embodies. But I think the idea that it's selling McMurphy as an out and out 'hero' is a stretch.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

"I wouldn't say clearly."

I think you need glasses. These comments are from this thread alone:

"I think he's a hero."

"I admire him."

"I don't think he did anything wrong."

"I'm defending a lovable Jack Nicholson character."

"McMurphy didn't act like a pedophile in the film."

"McMurphy was a free spirit"

"He wanted to give the guys a good time"

"With her consent, I believe."

reply

[–] capuchin (3358) 3 years ago

You're talking about comments in this thread; I'm talking about the film itself. That some people here do side clearly and unambiguously with the character doesn't alter a single frame of the movie.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Boy that comment went right over your head.

Ken Kesey, the author of the book, was a well-known counter culture figure in the 60s and 70s. He even faked suicide to avoid jail time.

reply

[–] capuchin (3358) 3 years ago

I know who Ken Kesey was.

But, again, the life and times of Ken Kesey don't alter a single frame of the movie.

reply

[–] kuatorises (7467) 3 years ago

Yeah, he only wrote the inspiration for it....

reply

[–] capuchin (3358) 3 years ago

But you know that reliable evidence for a text can only come from the text itself. You were taught critical analysis in school, I suspect. It's only important what is in the film.

You may have been right though. Something may have gone over my head, because it isn't at all clear to me what you imagine yourself to be debating here.

Referring back to my original post: do you disagree with my contention that the film has moral ambiguities and complex characters, especially vis-a-vis a children's film such as Star Wars?

If you're willing to accept that point, then your entire disagreement here would appear to boil down to a semantic argument over the strength of the word 'clearly'. After all, I do say that the film does ultimately side with McMurphy.

I admire your passion, but it strikes me as somewhat misplaced -- as, to me anyway, that small point doesn't seem to be particularly worthy of debate.

reply