Milos Forman’s One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest is based on Ken Kesey’s novel by the same title. It was the first film ever to receive all five most sought after Academy Awards for best picture, best director, best screenplay, best leading actor and best leading actress in that year. McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson) is a prisoner who is sent from the work farm to an asylum to determine whether his rebelliousness is attributable to insanity. He starts a quiet revolution amongst some of the asylum’s inmates. He makes a bet to taunt and bring down head Nurse Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher) who rules the ward with an iron fist. At first it is all fun and games, but it ultimately takes a turn for the worst.

The film takes one on a roller coaster of emotions, from laughing out loud to worrying empathy, from becoming enraged to shedding some tears. McMurphy might be a convicted felon, but his charismatic personality quickly wins over the audience as well as the inmates. Even though he does many irresponsible and questionable things, he reveals attributes which are quite endearing. One finds oneself rooting for him when he breaks the rules. He breaks the rigid and oppressive monotony of the inmates’ lives and becomes the object of their entertainment and amusement. But as in all dictatorships, this is short-lived.

Louise Fletcher gives a wonderful performance as the head nurse, who is very clinical, cold, unbending, rational and disconcertingly calm – quite the antithesis of McMurphy. It is quite disturbing how patients are subdued through medication and treatment methods such as shock therapy. The film gives a voice to those who are oppressed through any system or establishment of power.

The author of the novel, Ken Kesey, reportedly did not want to watch the film seeing that his novel is told through the eyes of Chief Bromden, while the film is told through McMurphy’s eyes. It would indeed have been quite a different film if the movie had been closer to Kesey’s book. I have not read the book yet, and, therefore, cannot say whether I would have preferred one or the other and why. But what I can concede, is that the film is poignant exactly for the fact that Murphy is the protagonist; it shows just how powerful tyranny can be in destroying the mightiest spirits.

SPOILER WARNING! The word “cuckoo” is slang for a crazy or foolish person. But its main meaning is that of a bird who lays its eggs in the nests of other species. This might refer to McMurphy who laid an egg of revolution in the asylum, which hatch out in the form of Chief Bromden breaking out of the asylum after he has been subjugated to the staff’s will. The Wikipedia contends that

…the origin of the title is often disputed, however, it is believed to come from a poem by Louis Untermeyer called “Rainbow in the Sky.”

“Wire, briar, limber-lock
Three gees in a flock
One flew east, one flew west
And one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.”

The “one [that] flew east” is McMurphy, and the “one [that] flew west” is Nurse Ratched, illustrating their opposite directions and rivalry. “And one flew over the cuckoo’s nest” describes Chief who was able to escape the institute of mentally ill patients. It loses the significance it had in the novel, in which the line is a part of a rhyme Chief Bromden remembers from his childhood. This detail was not included in the film.

[Web]

Puritan Nurse Ratched very sadistically vows to tell Billy’s mother of his wild night with one of McMurphy’s girlfriends. There does not seem to be as much rehabilitation as oppression and suppression in the mental hospital. Chief suffocates McMurphy in the end; it is a mercy killing to rescue him from the vegetable-like state the mental hospital has put him in. SPOILERS END HERE.

Genre: Comedy / Drama
Running time: 133 min
Country: USA
Language: English
Director: Milos Forman
Writing credits: Ken Kesey (novel)
Bo Goldman (screenplay)
Lawrence Hauben (screenplay)
Producers: Michael Douglas
Martin Fink
Saul Zaentz
Cinematographer: Haskell Wexler
Bill Butler
Editor: Sheldon Kahn
Lynzee Klingman
Music: Jack Nitzsche Distributed by: United Artists Main Cast:
Randle Patrick McMurphy – Jack Nicholson
Nurse Mildred Ratched – Louise Fletcher
Dale Harding – William Redfield
Dr. John Spivey – Dean R. Brooks
Martini – Danny DeVito
Jim Sefelt – William Duell
Billy Bibbit – Brad Dourif
Max Taber – Christopher Lloyd
Chief Bromden – Will Sampson
Frederickson – Vincent Schiavelli
Attendant Washington – Nathan George
Attendant Warren – Mwako Cumbuka
Orderly Turkle – Scatman Crothers

Le foglie, a Padova, non sono mai state così gialle: lo notavo oggi, andando a fare benzina. Non so da cosa possa dipendere; forse, tiro ad indovinare, dal modo con il quale si è arrivati a questo 21 novembre 2009, cioè dalla particolare sequenza di piogge, siccità, sole, nebbia (tanta nebbia) che ha caratterizzato gli ultimi mesi. Di sicuro ha piovuto poco; o così, almeno, mi pare di ricordare. Di sicuro, nei 21 novembre degli altri anni, le foglie erano già cadute, e stavano marcendo sui bordi dei marciapiedi; oppure, ancora appese ai rami, presentavano una gamma molto più convenzionale, e autunnale, di marroni.

Non ho mai visto quadri in cui le foglie siano state rappresentate con l’esatta tonalità del giallo squillante che ho ammirato oggi, lungo la strada verso il distributore. Neppure nelle opere degli impressionisti, così attenti a cogliere i colori cangianti della natura. E se qualche pittore decidesse di mettersi con il suo cavalletto lungo i marciapiedi della mia città, non oserebbe riprodurre la realtà per quello che è: il risultato non sarebbe verosimile.

Eh sì, bel paradosso: ci sono casi in cui la realtà non è verosimile; succede con certe storie di cronaca nera, con i tramonti, con le nuvole, con gli amori. Con le foglie. A raccontarli per quello che sono, a disegnarli, a suonarli usando solo dettagli veri, si otterrebbe qualcosa di incredibile. Perché, per definizione l’arte inganna: con artifici (ah, quante cose svela l’etimologia…) di varia natura – le parole, i colori, le forme, le note – essa induce il suo fruitore ad espandere i limiti della propria credulità. E’ per questo che Platone riteneva che l’arte, a differenza della filosofia, fosse estremamente pericolosa per una società civile: perché induceva le persone al pianto o al riso per fatti che non erano mai accaduti, trasformando così gli ascoltatori in bambini ingenui, potenzialmente disposti a credere anche a ciò che non è buono e giusto.

L’inganno dell’arte arriva a livelli sublimi. Dalle persone di fede protestante, Bach è stato considerato, per almeno due secoli, il quinto apostolo: la sua famosissima “Passione secondo Matteo” (che ogni adulto occidentale dovrebbe ascoltare almeno una volta, come prerequisito per poter votare alle Elezioni Europee) veniva considerata come un vangelo; e tra i vangeli, come quello più suggestivo. Tutti erano convinti che Bach avesse tradotto in musica la sua personale, profondissima esperienza religiosa, e che l’elevatezza irraggiungibile (lo è anche per un ateo come me: il sentimento religioso non presuppone l’esistenza di Dio) del risultato ottenuto dipendesse, in modo diretto, dalla grandezza e dalla purezza di quell’ispirazione divina. E’ invece ormai condiviso il fatto che Bach scrisse la musica della Passione prima di decidere la destinazione che intendeva dargli (Bach era un musicista professionista, che componeva esclusivamente su commissione); i sentimenti, insomma, si suscitano con la tecnica: e non con il sentimento, come credono tutti gli ingenui del mondo.

In ambiti molto meno nobili, è risaputo che quando i comici si divertono, difficilmente gli spettatori ridono. E che non serve morire sul palco – morire davvero – per convincere il pubblico a versare qualche lacrima sincera. Mentre si girava il film “Il maratoneta”, Laurence Olivier, vedendo il suo collega Dustin Hoffman che correva per due chilometri per girare una scena in cui aveva il fiatone, gli chiese: “Ma non sarebbe sufficiente recitare?”. Gli attori impiegano anni per arrivare a gestire ogni aspetto del proprio corpo, del proprio viso, della propria voce, con un solo obiettivo: cioè recitare talmente bene, da sembrare veri. Ad Hollywood gira anche la battuta che Dustin Hoffman, prima di girare “Kramer contro Kramer”, storia dolorosa di una separazione, divorziò da sua moglie per applicare il famoso metodo dell’Actor’s Studio, che prevedeva una totale identificazione dell’attore con il personaggio: in realtà, Dustin Hoffman divorziò da sua moglie durante le riprese.

Il maratoneta

Scendendo ancora un po’ più giù, ci sono voci di cantanti che ci fanno emozionare fino al punto da indurci la famosa orripilazione, aka pelle d’oca (fenomeno trasmesso dai nostri pensieri ai muscoli dei peli attraverso il sistema simpatico: il che apre scenari incredibilmente stimolanti sul rapporto tra mente e corpo), e ci pare che questo effetto sia dovuto al gran cuore del cantante, capace di provare sentimenti con un’intensità tale da farli tracimare, e attraverso la proverbiale ugola, farli arrivare a noi intatti. Il caso di quella specie di idiot savant che è Amy Winehouse dimostra che le cose, probabilmente, non vanno affatto in questo modo: con i produttori si lavora per giorni sulla particolare raucedine da usare in un passaggio, fino a che questo diventa sinceramente toccante.

L’arte inganna; se non lo fa, allora perde tutta la sua potenza. Una fotografia diventa arte quando, rappresentando il giardino sotto casa, o il viso di una persona, il risultato sembra tutt’altro. Nei cartoni animati della Pixar, il realismo si ottiene anche riproducendo la rifrazione della lente della cinepresa – lente che non esiste da nessuna parte, se non nella nostra testa.

Per essere credibile, insomma, l’arte deve assomigliare all’arte. E il giallo inverosimile di questa mattina, credetemi, non si era mai visto in nessun quadro.

Milos Forman (Amadeus, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest) delivers another period piece in the form of Goya’s Ghosts. During the time of the French Revolution and the Spanish Inquisition, Francisco Goya, court painter to the Spanish crown, gets a few commissions that would change his life forever: Brother Lorenzo, leader of the Inquisition, asks Goya to paint his portrait. Goya also paints the portrait of the beautiful young daughter, Inés, of the affluent Tomás Bilbatúa. Goya is drawn into a sticky situation when Inés is arrested on suspicion of being a heretic and has to turn to Brother Lorenzo when Tomás asks him for help.

Do not expect a biography on Goya’s life. The film begins in medias res of Goya’s successful career as painter and he is used as centripetal force to rather tell the stories of his times and that of Inés and Brother Lorenzo. Like many of his artworks, Goya becomes the eyes which recount the atrocities, fanaticism, cruelty and irrational persecution of the Spanish Inquisition. Their methods are ludicrous, their trials unjust and the purity of the Holy Office’s beliefs tarnished by its contradictory callousness. Brother Lorenzo becomes the embodiment of the hypocrisy and the supercilious nature of many “holy men of the cloth”, who easily succumb to the lust of flesh or easily choose to be corrupted by power. As a viewer, I was so outraged by the torture scene of Inés, that I felt as helpless as many of these people must have felt when faced with the tyranny of fanatic crusades in the name of religion. In this day and age, this film reminds one of the walls that religion often builds between people – walls that often lead to intolerance, persecution and violence. The historic battles between the English and the French, and the raw war scenes also remind one how cruel people were in olden times. The children dancing and singing around the corpse of a man who had just been publicly executed lends a sense of irony and revulsion. Hard times equals hard people.

What bugs me about the film is the fact that it was somewhat inconsistent throughout: very good at times, less good at others. And I must say, I find the authenticity of a film very unconvincing when a historic film about Spain is told in English with the use of American actors with American accents. Natalie Portman gives a great performance as the mentally unstable Inés, but one cannot deny that she is not Spanish. Javier Bardem once again proves why is one of the best method actors around, but the film still cannot escape the fact that it is told in English. I think it would have enriched the film if it were told in Spanish with English subtitles and with a full Spanish cast.

INFO

Genre: Period Drama
Running time: 114 min
Country: Spain
Language: English
Director: Milos Forman
Writing credits: Jean-Claude Carrière
Milos Forman
Producers: Mark Albel
Denise O’Dell
Paul Zaentz
Saul Zaentz
Cinematographer: Javier Aguirresarobe
Editor: Adam Boome
Music: Varhan Orchestrovich
Josè Nietol
Distributed by: Kanzaman S.A.I.
Main Cast:
Brother Lorenzo – Javier Bardem
Inés/Alicia – Natalie Portman
Francisco Goya – Stellan Skarsgård
King Carlos IV – Randy Quaid
Queen María Luisa – Blanca Portillo
Father Gregorio – Michael Lonsdale
Tomás Bilbatúa – José Luis Gómez

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079261/

I have a conflicted relationship with the films of Milos Forman.  In my teens they seemed the height of quality cinema: funny, exciting and erudite, with a rebellious spirit.  As I grow older, I find myself far more critical of his work.  I still believe they are great works of art, but often they seem to venerate anyone whose actions run contrary to the accepted morality, the dominant power structure or the status quo in general without regard to the individuals motivations or to the end result of his (the protagonists are always male) actions.

Now I have never seen the stage play Hair, but I have read and listened to reactions of those to have, and this film, while fun, doesn’t seem to be the sort of transformative experience that they reported.  Part of this might just be the difference in energy between the live and recorded performances, or the fact that I am watching this story in 2009 rather than 1969.  Perhaps this temporal distance is why the makers of this film felt the need to alter the plot from the play.  In 1979 the Vietnam war was over, and the idealism of 1960s protest movements had given way to hedonism and cynicism of the disco era.  The internal conflict of someone caught between the responsibility of traditional society and being true to himself and his personal beliefs must have seemed rather naïve in the wake of Kent state and Watergate.  Receiving a draft notice in 1968 could still prompt an existential crisis.  In 1979, Carter had pardoned all the draft dodgers.  Disco Claude would probably have just tossed out the draft notice and snorted another line.

The last half hour of the movie seems horribly contrived, at the end becoming a slapstick case of mistaken identity resembling an update of Tale of Two Cities played for laughs.  Also by making Claude an outsider rather than a member of the tribe, makes the close relationship between him and the other characters rather curious.  While I get that the hippies are supposed to be open and welcoming, doesn’t Claude have some friends and family from back home who would like to see him?

The other curious feature of the film, which may be an artifact of the stage play, is how emasculated all of the non-hippie characters seem to be.  No one is willing to throw the tribe out of the wedding, despite making a variety of threats.  Berger successfully carjacks a straight couple but not once but twice because the man is unwilling to stand up to him and the woman is sexually aroused by him.

All in all, the movie is watchable and the songs entertaining, but I don’t feel I have had a definitive ‘Hair’ experience.

 Francisco Goya “La maja vestida”, 1800 circa. Madrid, Prado.

Francisco Goya “La maja desnuda”, 1800 circa. Madrid, Prado.

A quanto pare Manuel Godoy Álvarez de Faria Ríos Sánchez, onnipotente ministro di Carlo IV re di Spagna, odiato da tutti eccetto da coloro che non potevano permetterselo, si era fatto costruire nel suo gabinetto privato un dispositivo ingegnoso. Un ritratto di donna giacente, le braccia piegate sul cuscino e le mani unite dietro il capo, scorreva verticalmente in un recesso segreto e lasciava il posto a un ritratto analogo, medesima donna, ma senza indumento alcuno come una dea pagana. 

La donna sorride in entrambi casi al pittore, non un vero ammiccamento, sarebbe stato troppo volgare, piuttosto una amabile e quieta sicurezza di sè, una ilarità trattenuta e complice. Il pittore Francisco Goya, afflitto da deprimente sordità, dopo aver impartito le istruzioni necessarie alla modella, si suppone amante del ministro, deve essersi concentrato sulla sua opera limitando al minimo la conversazione. Ha certamente come riferimento la Venere d’Urbino e Gli Andrii di Tiziano nonché la Venere allo specchio di Velasquez. È consapevole dell’assoluta eccezionalità della commissione (si tratta per quel che ne sappiamo del primo nudo femminile non giustificabile da pretesti mitologici) e quindi decide di interpretare il tema in modo assolutamente nuovo: annulla ogni indizio ambientale,scompare persino la cortina che nei dipinti dei due maestri incornicia parzialmente il nudo, rivela in modo chiaro il soffice giaciglio sul quale è distesa la donna. La luce è diversa nei due dipinti: calda nella Maja vestida, più fredda nella Maja desnuda. Il ministro non godette a lungo delle gioie della “visione doppia” in quanto una rivolta popolare e Napoleone in persona lo costrinsero all’esilio nel 1808. Goya pagò caro l’aver dipinto l’amante di Godoy, Pepita Tudò: nel 1815 fu chiamato in giudizio dalla temibile Inquisizione che gli chiedeva se riconosceva come opere sue i due quadri, il motivo per cui li aveva dipinti, chi lo aveva incaricato, chi fosse il soggetto e per quale fine avesse prestato l’opera sua. Si salvò per la provvidenziale intercessione di un cardinale.

Associo a questo intervento due clips reperite su YouTube: la prima si riferisce al film “L’ultimo inquisitore” di Milos Forman, la seconda riguarda un’esecuzione di Andres Segovia di un’opera del compositore Granados ispirata a Goya.

One of the most celebrated films of all time, Amadeus has always been a single inch away from my play-list, and it took a fellow lover of film named Jacob to suggest it to my face for me to actually get off my duff and watch it. And am I ever glad I did! Amadeus really is a must-see; now that I’ve seen it, I rue the years spent living without having seen it. It’s a very beautiful film about the aching, sorrowful differences between the unreachable heights of true genius and the rolling, lame slopes of mediocrity, and how that can lead to enmity that shouldn’t have existed at all.

It begins with an attempted suicide and a tearful confession. An old man in 1823, the famous Italian composer Salieri to be precise, is in a mental institution for trying to kill himself after confessing to the murder of Mozart. A priest comes in to talk him out of his horrible malaise, and advises that perhaps confessing will ease his heart. Salieri confesses for nearly a day and a half, setting a scene that recounted the contentious relationship between he and fellow composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He recalls his youth as a devoutly God-fearing man who believed that his life as a composer was a blessing from the Lord himself. He lived under the patronage of the Austrian Archbishop of Salzburg, and made very pretty music that suited the age and his peers. But when Mozart bursts into his patron’s palace to play a piece, everything changes. Salieri regards Mozart’s music as magical, miraculous, but when he sees him off-stage and hears how inappropriate and lewd he is, he doesn’t know what to think. He slaves to write Mozart a March of Welcome, which Mozart, upon receiving it, improvises upon and makes it better! This creates a conundrum for Salieri; he believed that Mozart was somehow touched by God and given a voice to create wonderful music, but now that he has seen Mozart, he feels that God has forsaken him. He hatches a plan to get back at both God and Mozart that is both insidious and cunning, and it requires him to do things he never would have even considered before that damn Mozart came into the picture. Will Salieri’s envious heart and devious mind end up costing him his very soul and Mozart his life? Or are these merely the ramblings of a senile old man?

This was such a splendid piece that my spirits were lifted for the rest of the day after I left the TV screen. Its scope is grand, its vision is elegant and truly gorgeous, and its emotional strength is bolstered exponentially by some of the greatest music ever recorded. It’s a movie that has its roots in the darkness of the human soul, but doesn’t forget to make us laugh. And would you believe that a movie called Amadeus really isn’t about Mozart? This is a story about jealousy, a jealousy that is inspired by Mozart’s incredible talent, and the man himself, while featured prominently, is really more of a source of ire for Salieri rather than a main character.

Directed by Milos Forman, famous for One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and, well, THIS movie, Amadeus is exultant in its amazing look at the Classical period in European music created by a man who surely understood its power. Forman transports us to a time of a life at court, composing for the wealthy and educated, a time in music that changed the world forever, breaking away from the Baroque in a way that would pave the way for composers throughout the next 200 years. Forman’s greatest achievement, as a director, though, is getting the larger-than-life stories of these two men on the screen and squeezing it in to a tasteful 181 minutes. The tumultuous relationship between these two geniuses is nothing short of phenomenal, and it must be said that with everything that happens, it certainly doesn’t feel like a 3 hour film (unlike the recent 150 minute debacle of 2012).

The leads here were so good that the Academy Awards gave them a rare double nod for Best Actor. F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce are Salieri and Mozart respectively, and each plays their characters like true acting powerhouses. F. Murray Abraham never really got the break he deserved in Hollywood, and I think this should be his Exhibit A for getting a second chance. His Salieri is so good that I can’t really separate the truth from the fiction now. If someone told me that Salieri didn’t act so cavalier and didn’t hold a grudge like a champ, I don’t know if I would believe him. And Tom Hulce… Tom Hulce is incredible. He gets every nuance about Mozart that anyone ever wrote about him. His high-pitched weird laughter, his relationships with his friends and family, and even his unexpected love of poop and fart jokes! That’s right, both in real life and in this film, Mozart thinks farts are the funniest thing since Chuck Norris! He brings it up a few times, and if you don’t laugh when Mozart lets one rip, I will officially question your humanity.

It’s a timeless, wonderful film set in the most extravagant time in Western Europe, and I don’t think anybody’s DVD collection would be complete without it. If you have a sensibility that is classy with a tinge of weird, you have one major priority right now; go see Amadeus! It’s well worth the time you put into it; it might be the wisest investment of exactly 181 minutes you’ll ever make. The two leads are phenomenal, the director is extremely invested, and the music is some of the best of all time! You’ll never look at classical music the same way again! I give Amadeus 10 Mozart farts out of 10! My highest recommendation!

Tomorrow we give the site a shot of the classical sauce again with Tenacious D and The Pick of Destiny! Until then!

Brilliant. Time to talk about our Ten lists once more, so settle in for the long haul and try and keep up. Much discussion ensues as Sam tries to extol the virtues of Ingmar Bergman, praise the magical realism of Billy Liar and attempt to make sense of All About Lily Chou-Chou. John continues the theme, causing slight, though understandable, consternation with his uncensored views on Raging Bull and confessions of multiple tears during Schindler’s List. Tom rounds the night off in business-like fashion with praise for The 400 Blows, controversial dislike for the second half of Stalker and man-crushed love for Le Samourai.

Download The Movie Overdose Episode 40.5

Remember to email us, sugarplums!

Brilliant. Time to talk about our Ten lists once more, so settle in for the long haul and try and keep up. Much discussion ensues as Sam tries to extol the virtues of Ingmar Bergman, praise the magical realism of Billy Liar and attempt to make sense of All About Lily Chou-Chou. John continues the theme, causing slight, though understandable, consternation with his uncensored views on Raging Bull and confessions of multiple tears during Schindler’s List. Tom rounds the night off in business-like fashion with praise for The 400 Blows, controversial dislike for the second half of Stalker and man-crushed love for Le Samourai.

Download The Movie Overdose Episode 40.5

Remember to email us, sugarplums!

I made this list a while back, but I was looking back over my site recently and I’m not ashamed to say this, but I did not spend nearly enough time on this list. So I’ve re-watched some movies, watched some new ones, re-evaluated my thoughts and I’ve decided to re write this list. This list consists of ten of the greatest minds and artists of our time. I’m proud to give them my money every time I hear their name attached to a movie and especially when their name is on the director’s chair.

Along with the name of the director I’ve also included a description of exactly why their on this list and also my three favorite movies in order by said director. It was one of the most difficult lists I’ve had to make, but one I believe all movie critics should divulge their time in creating.

Before I get into the actual list I’d like to give you six Honorable mentions in no particular order. These are all incredible artists who just barely missed the mark:

• Oliver Stone
• Francis Ford Coppola
• Guy Ritchie
• Alfred Hitchcock
• Peter Jackson
• Sergio Leone

Now here’s my top ten favorite cinematic directors of all time:

10. Clint Eastwood

Many people know and love Eastwood for his acting, which he does triumph in, but in my opinion his true genius lies behind the camera. He almost never disappoints and is my favorite director in the western genre. After making his masterpiece Unforgiven, he showed that he surpasses even his large influence Sergio Leone.

3. The Outlaw Josey Wales

2. Mystic River

1. Unforgiven

9. Milos Forman

The two time academy-award winning director is nothing short of one of the greatest directors of all time. His movies speak for themselves; The People vs. Larry Flynt is fantastic, Amadeus is a masterpiece and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest is nothing short of a perfect movie and one of the greatest ever made.

3. The People vs. Larry Flynt

2. Amadeus

1. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

8. Tim Burton

Very few filmmakers have ever been able to even match the visual expertise that director Tim Burton brings to each of his films. All of of Burton’s movies are of course full of great, story, acting, and emotion, but even more so than any other directors. Tim Burton makes sure that his movies look beautiful and absolutely never fails.

3. Big Fish

2. Ed Wood

1. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

7. Steven Spielberg

No top directors list is complete without Spielberg and actually most with disagree with the fact that he’s not higher. Sure he’s directed numerous classics, but when looking at his resume, he’s actually a pretty generic crowd pleaser. He’s a fantastic director, one of the best, but there are a few I enjoy more.

3. Catch Me If You Can

2. Jaws

1. Schindler’s List

6. Christopher Nolan

Christopher Nolan is of course the director of my favorite movie, but even besides masterfully directing the Batman series to perfection, he’s also directed  a couple of other very notable and actually pretty spectacular movies. I also see him directing many masterpieces in the future, that’s the best thing about Nolan, I really think he’s just getting started.

3. The Prestige

2. Batman Begins

1. The Dark Knight

5. David Fincher

David Fincher has really become a powerhouse of genius. There’s no arguing that he really is one of the greatest directors working today. He made his masterpiece in 1999 and almost ten years later he shows us that he that he can still make masterpieces with Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. David Fincher really is a master of his craft, not to be second guessed.

3. SE7EN

2. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

1. Fight Club

4. Martin Scorsese

Now we get to the top 4. The hardest part in creating this list was attempting to order this top 4. Each in my opinion is worthy of the number one spot, but I had to figure of an order. It really saddens me that I had to put the incredible director Martin Scorsese this high on the list, but I can’t let everyone win. Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly a creator of modern masterpieces. No one makes films like him and very few make films as good as he does. He didn’t invent the art of filmmaking, but he sure as hell perfected it.

3. Gangs of New York

2. Goodfellas

1. The Departed

3. Stanley Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick is all around one of the greatest directors of all time, mainly because he has more innovation and variety than any other filmmaker. He’s really done it all. He’s made horror movies, war movies, dramas, science-fiction, romance, heist movies, even comedies, and I could go on. Each one of his films are worth watching and making opinions on. You will find at least one that you will thoroughly enjoy. Or you’ll be like me and enjoy every single one.

3. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

2. Full Metal Jacket

1. The Shining

2. Quentin Tarantino

Through the years Quentin Tarantino has always stuck out as one of the greatest directors of all time. He began his illustrious career with the fantastically unique heist flick Reservoir Dogs, then he showed us what he can really do by directing one of the greatest movies of all time, Pulp Fiction. Time passed and he directed the spectacles that were Jackie Brown, Kill Bill and Death Proof. Every single one is fantastic in my opinion. He then showed me that he is one of the greatest artists not only working today, but of all time with the release of Inglourious Basterds. Pulp Fiction is one of the greatest movies of all time and I didn’t think for a second that Tarantino would ever be able o top that. I was wrong. He did and he did it with flying colors and flare. I love all of Tarantino’s work and I don’t believe I will ever find myself being disappointed by a movie he directs. He has fun with every movie he makes. He loves what he does and as a result I love and have fun with every single masterpiece he comes up with.

3. Kill Bill

2. Pulp Fiction

1. Inglourious Basterds

1. The Coen Brothers

The Coen Brothers. Their movies really speak for themselves, there’s not much I can really say. The industry wouldn’t be the same without them. They are monumental force releasing masterpiece after masterpiece. Its really impossible to ever be disappointed with a Coen Brother movie. They make films exactly how they want to make films, they let nothing hold them back like money or popularity. They make art for the sake of making art.

They’ve made more masterpieces than one would think possible. They absolutely never let you down. They are the smartest people working in the industry by far. There is not a single director out there who is able to direct movies to the caliber that the Coen Brothers can direct movies. I honestly want to shed a tear of joy with every ending of each of their movies because it seems almost impossible that the same two people can keep making masterpieces without fail for this long. The best part about it is also that The Coen Brothers still have a lot more masterpieces to go and that fact makes me happy to be alive.

3. Fargo

2. Barton Fink

1. No Country For Old Men

(One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest) 

Filmes em Geral #8

Vencedores do Oscar #1975

Dirigido por Milos Forman.

Elenco: Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd, Brad Dourif, William Redfield, Michael Berryman, Peter Brocco, Will Sampson, Dean R. Brooks, Alonzo Brown, Mwako Cumbuka, William Duell, Josip Elic, Lan Fendors e Sydney Lassick. 

Roteiro: Bo Goldman e Lawrence Hauben, baseado em livro de Ken Kesey. 

Produção: Michael Douglas e Saul Zaentz. 

[Antes de qualquer coisa, gostaria de pedir que só leia esta crítica se já tiver assistido o filme. Para fazer uma análise mais detalhada é necessário citar cenas importantes da trama].

A sensação de liberdade é algo que independe de onde estamos e de como vivemos. Podemos nos sentir livres de diversas maneiras e em diversos lugares. Da mesma forma, estar preso não quer dizer necessariamente que estamos encarcerados ou cercados por muros e grades. Podemos nos sentir sufocados, cercados, aprisionados, mesmo que estejamos no mais livre dos lugares do planeta. A questão é: temos coragem de lutar para conquistar a liberdade que desejamos? A prisão psicológica de um grupo de pessoas dentro de uma instituição para doentes mentais (ou manicômio) e o caos que “um estranho no ninho” provoca naquelas vidas é o fio condutor do belíssimo drama dirigido por Milos Forman e estrelado brilhantemente por Jack Nicholson.

O condenado Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) se passa por louco para evitar trabalhar no campo e acaba sendo transferido para um manicômio, onde vai alterar a rotina dos presentes e entrar em conflito com as rígidas normas de controle estabelecidas pela instituição e seguidas à risca pela enfermeira Mildred Ratched (Louise Fletcher). Ao despertar os pacientes e provocar a revolta deles contra estas regras ele irá encontrar também seu trágico destino.

O cotidiano de uma instituição responsável pela reabilitação de pessoas com problemas mentais não deve mesmo ser nada fácil. Afinal de contas, conviver diariamente com pessoas das quais não sabemos que comportamento esperar é algo um tanto complicado e perigoso. Por outro lado, deve ser gratificante para qualquer profissional da área quando alguém deste grupo apresenta alguma evolução, o que serve de motivação para enfrentar este clima pesado diariamente. Sendo assim, não podemos condenar os rígidos métodos adotados pela instituição e seguidos fielmente pela enfermeira Ratched na tentativa de controlar a situação, o que estava sendo feito com sucesso até a chegada de alguém que, por motivos óbvios, não seguirá as regras do local e, conseqüentemente, provocará o conflito naquele ambiente. Milos Forman acerta em cheio na utilização de muitos closes, que realçam as expressões marcantes daquelas pessoas perturbadas psicologicamente, em contraponto às longas tomadas sem corte que permitem ao espectador apreciar em detalhes a espetacular atuação coletiva do elenco. O diretor é hábil ao explorar as maravilhosas atuações de um elenco incrivelmente talentoso, como no diálogo final entre a enfermeira Ratched e Billy Bibbit (Brad Dourif), realçando as expressões dos dois. Além disso, faz interessantes movimentos de câmera, como na cena da votação, que inicia com um close no sorridente McMurphy, e que lentamente vai se afastando dele para mostrar que o resultado da votação não foi nem de perto o esperado por ele. Forman também é competente ao nos dar algumas dicas do que vai acontecer durante o filme de forma sutil. Observe, por exemplo, como na cena em que McMurphy diz para o grupo que vai assistir ao jogo, arremessando a pia na janela e fugindo, o rápido close no olhar curioso do Chefe Bromden (Will Sampson) sinaliza para o espectador o emocionante final do drama. Em outra oportunidade, podemos notar McMurphy olhando para um esquilo que caminha tranquilamente na cerca, mostrando que não é elétrica, e no plano seguinte vemos o ônibus saindo do local, o que se revela um bom artifício para justificar uma atitude que McMurphy tomaria depois.

O ótimo roteiro de Bo Goldman e Lawrence Hauben (baseado em livro de Ken Kesey) desenvolve muito bem os diversos personagens, além de contar com um final bastante corajoso (note também um interessante trocadilho em inglês – “Se Felt See” – quando McMurphy fala com Sefelt – William Duell). Com um excelente roteiro nas mãos, Forman permitiu ao elenco mostrar todo o seu brilhantismo. E poucas vezes tivemos uma performance tão uniforme e qualificada. Todo o elenco de “Um Estranho no Ninho” é, no mínimo, sensacional. A começar pela atuação antológica de Jack Nicholson. Podemos notar logo em sua primeira aparição, quando grita de alegria ao tirar a algema e dá um beijo no guarda antes de entrar dançando pelo corredor, que seu trabalho é perfeito. O filme é dele. Sua atuação é tão espetacular que fica até difícil destacar algum momento em especial. Solto, alegre, perfeccionista, Jack trabalha em cada pequeno detalhe da composição do personagem, como podemos notar no tom de voz baixo enquanto conversa com o médico, o olhar que nunca se fixa em um ponto, o pigarro na garganta, o sorriso com o que o médico fala e o soco na mesa quando o médico menos espera, para matar uma mosca talvez. Jack é competente também ao mostrar sua alegria quando ouve o Chefe falar pela primeira vez, mostrando a felicidade de McMurphy ao perceber que existe alguém ali parecido com ele, que não se enquadra naquele lugar e não se conforma em aceitar aquele destino. Nos momentos tristes e tensos, o ator se mostra igualmente talentoso, como na hora da medicação em que ele olha cinicamente para a enfermeira, e na cena em que parte pra cima de Ratched após a morte de Billy. O embate entre os dois, aliás, é um prato cheio para mostrar o talento de Jack e Fletcher. Repare como ele ri do gesto que Harding (William Redfield) faz quando pergunta se é marica. Ele repete o gesto e gargalha da discussão, mas lentamente vai ficando sério e percebendo que o problema daquelas pessoas é maior do que ele pensava. No final da cena, McMurphy e Ratched se olham fixamente. Os dois sabem que enfrentarão problemas. Louise Fletcher, aliás, é muito competente ao transmitir toda a firmeza e rigidez de Ratched. Seu olhar intimida e sua frieza na solução dos problemas chega a ser espantosa. Na citada cena da votação, ela sorri levemente com o resultado, como quem está só comprovando algo que já sabia que aconteceria. Os métodos da enfermeira Ratched são frios, cruéis até, mas ela acredita ser a forma correta de liderar e controlar aquele grupo e, apesar de entender as razões de Ratched, não somos obrigados a concordar com estes métodos. A presença de McMurphy representa o caos naquele grupo, já que ele tem as atitudes inesperadas, quebra a rotina e ativa um lado praticamente adormecido naquelas pessoas, o que gera um problema para ela. Por outro lado, não podemos considerar que a enfermeira seja uma má pessoa, como fica comprovado na reunião dos médicos em que Ratched diz querer ficar com McMurphy e não simplesmente passar o problema adiante.

O restante do elenco não fica atrás da dupla principal. A primeira discussão em grupo gera uma gritaria e histeria geral, mostrando a loucura do grupo e nos situando no ambiente. Brad Dourif é, talvez, o maior destaque entre eles. Sua gagueira ao falar mostra a timidez de Billy e seu final trágico é marcante, com sua atuação fantástica no momento em que é levado para a sala, explodindo em raiva e medo (Ratched olha firme para McMurphy, culpando-o). Danny DeVito, como Martini, também se destaca, praticamente fechando os olhos pra falar e quase sempre olhando pra baixo, mostrando insegurança. Observe como em uma das reuniões com a enfermeira Ratched, DeVito fica olhando para o chão até ser chamado. Sydney Lassick, como Cheswick, e Christopher Lloyd como Taber, também merecem ser citados. Will Sampson fecha a lista de destaques como o Chefe Bromden, sempre com o olhar disperso e com os movimentos lentos. Repare como lentamente ele mostra que gosta de McMurphy, como na cena em que ri após o amigo pular a cerca, ou com sua alegria no jogo de basquete e, mais claramente, quando se envolve na briga de McMurphy com os enfermeiros.

A excelente montagem de Sheldon Kahn e Lynzee Klingman capta todo o elenco, destacando todas as belas atuações. Observe, por exemplo, como a montagem consegue mostrar alternadamente todos os presentes nas cenas de discussão em grupo sem soar picotada. A direção de fotografia (direção de Haskell Wexler) e os figurinos (mérito de Aggie Guerard Rodgers) utilizam muito a cor branca, que teoricamente deveria passar uma sensação de paz, mas que naquele ambiente estranhamente nos causam uma sensação de isolamento. A clássica e melancólica trilha sonora talvez colabore para esta sensação, funcionando muito bem naquele ambiente triste.

Extremamente emocionante, o filme conta com algumas cenas belíssimas e tocantes. A comovente cena do jogo de beisebol mostra o primeiro conflito evidente provocado por McMurphy e conta com uma narração convincente de Nicholson. A divertida cena da pescaria também é linda, principalmente por seu simbolismo. Apesar de contar com boas intenções, talvez o que os médicos não tenham percebido é que, mais do que regras e controle, aquelas pessoas precisavam mesmo é de carinho. O longa conta ainda com alguns momentos de alivio cômico, sendo o melhor deles quando McMurphy volta da enfermaria fazendo uma brincadeira com o grupo. Contém ainda uma crítica implícita ao cruel sistema destas casas de recuperação, quando o enfermeiro diz pra McMurphy que na cadeia ele sairia em breve (68 dias), mas lá ele só sai quando eles quiserem. Por outro lado, alguns dos pacientes poderiam deixar o local, mas não o fazem, o que reforça a tese da prisão psicológica do início desta crítica.

Ao se aproximar do final, “Um Estranho no Ninho” nos apresenta sua face mais cruel. A festa de despedida de McMurphy representou uma liberdade que o grupo não tinha por motivos óbvios. Talvez o que faltava naquele ambiente era mesmo um pouco de alegria, mesmo que não fosse daquela forma exagerada. Todo o terceiro ato, com o suicídio de Billy, a briga coletiva, a tentativa de McMurphy de assassinar Ratched, a morte de McMurphy e a fuga do Chefe têm um grande impacto e elevam ainda mais a qualidade do filme. Na seqüência final Will Sampson transmite muita emoção quando olha para McMurphy sorridente e, ao ver as cicatrizes do amigo, seu sorriso some. Ele o abraça comovido e toma a atitude que entende ser a melhor naquela situação, pois não agüentaria sair de lá sabendo que a pessoa que lhe trouxe a coragem para mudar sua vida ficaria ali daquela forma para sempre.

Ao ver o Chefe Bromden sair correndo pelo campo, sentimos um misto de alegria e tristeza. A morte de McMurphy serviu para despertar o inconformismo naquelas pessoas e levar pelo menos uma delas a sair daquela situação. Se por um lado não podemos condenar os métodos adotados pela instituição para controlar o grupo, por outro não podemos negar que é bom ver alguém que simplesmente não aceita esta imposição, tendo coragem de levantar uma bandeira e lutar por algo melhor. A lição maior que eu particularmente extraí do lindo drama “Um Estranho no Ninho” é que devemos sempre ficar atentos aos nossos direitos e lutar por eles, independente do lugar em que estamos. 

Texto publicado em 26 de Outubro de 2009 por Roberto Siqueira

reż. Milos Forman
scen. Peter Schaffer
wyst. Tom Hulce, F. Murray Abraham, Elisabeth Berridge

Przeczytałem gdzieś, że dzieło sztuki  należy odczytywać w kontekście epoki, w której powstało, a nie tej o której mówi, więc… Salieri będzie reaganomicznym yuppie, który popijając szampana z prezesami tamtego świata, nagle uświadamia sobie, że mimo wszystko jest miernotą, na co reaguje w sposób, który kojarzy mi się z bohaterami Ayn ‘Obudźcie Mnie w Hiperkapitalizmie’ Rand, tzn. za prywatne rozczarowanie mści się na Abstrakcji*. Przynajmniej subiektywnie. Bo w rzeczywistości zarówno Salieri jak i postaci Rand mszczą się na konkretnych ludziach (Mozart, Roark) – co w przypadku Salieriego oznacza głównie wysyłanie Mozartowi negatywnych wibracji i kibicowanie z trybun jego postępującej ruinie, ale Abraham gra tą bierność z taką soczystą teatralnością, że aż żal się robi kiedy gdzieś w środku filmu staje się chwilowo na rzecz Hulce postacią 2-planową. Ostatecznie narcyzm zostaje ukarany – pieniądze i zaszczyty przemijają z wiatrem, a zostaje tylko zajebista parodia motywu boskiego buntownika i yuppie-tragedia w jednym.

Plus Formanowskie tematy skazania na przeciętność, banalności zła, maglowania nonkonformistów itd.

* u Rand (czytałem tylko recenzje) postaci rozczarowane niepotrafiącą docenić genialnej sztuki Ludzkością poświęcają się budowaniu niesprawiedliwego i głupiego Systemu

Inspirado por el deseo del rey Alfonso XIII de construir un hotel de lujo que estuviera a la altura del Ritz de París, el Hotel Ritz de Madrid, inaugurado en 1910, comparte con sus homónimos de París y Londres la reputación de ser uno de los hoteles más majestuosos de Europa. El hotel se diseñó y construyó bajo la supervisión personal del legendario hotelero Cesar Ritz, de quien adoptó el nombre.El Ritz ha desempeñado un papel esencial en la vida de Madrid durante el último siglo. Aún hoy, el hotel persiste como un punto de atracción clave para muchos visitantes de esta capital europea.

A principios del siglo pasado, el rey Alfonso XIII volvía de sus viajes por Europa con el recuerdo de los palacios que había visitado impreso en la memoria. Madrid era una ciudad de intensa vitalidad, con edificios soberbios y hermosos jardines. Sin embargo, de un modo u otro le faltaba algo. El Rey fue el primero en ser consciente de cuánto ganaría la ciudad si contara con un gran hotel de lujo de la misma categoría del Ritz de París o Londres.

Se puso manos a la obra y no perdió tiempo en poner estas ideas en práctica. Madrid debía ofrecer a sus visitantes algo realmente extraordinario: un hotel que pudiera satisfacer el gusto más refinado de un nuevo tipo de viajero, que sólo por aquel entonces empezaba a conocerse como “turista”.

El sueño del monarca comenzó a hacerse realidad. La edificación del Ritz -grandioso, luminoso y confortable- había comenzado con el respaldo de la Compañía de Desarrollo Ritz. Charles Mewes, de París, y Luis de Landecho, de Madrid, fueron los arquitectos responsables. En poco tiempo, las paredes del futuro hotel sobrepasaban ya las magnolias, los cedros y las acacias del Prado.

Lo último en comodidad y lujo en aquella época era contar con cuatro o cinco cuartos de baño en cada planta del hotel. Con instalaciones como éstas, el Ritz se convirtió de inmediato en uno de los hoteles más lujosos del mundo. Había un teléfono por piso junto al ascensor, el cual también estaba considerado como un ejemplo sublime del lujo moderno.

Actualmente, el Hotel Ritz mantiene estas tradiciones, aunque los baños y teléfonos son estándar en todas las habitaciones, las cuales cuentan además con conexiones Wireless de alta velocidad a Internet.

A su vez el  Restaurante Goya es cita obligada para los paladares más exigentes, el té de media tarde en el Lobby Bar, un almuerzo o cena en La Terraza disfrutando de los increíbles jardines unido a un discreto pero atento servicio, hacen de los Restaurantes y Bar del Ritz los lugares más exclusivos de Madrid. 

Para terminar, destacar la fabulosa ubicación del Hotel,  un auténtico lujo por si misma. El Hotel Ritz está situado entre el Parque del Retiro, el Teatro de la Zarzuela y los tres museos más importantes de Madrid: el Prado, el Thyssen Bornemisza y el Centro de Arte Moderno Reina Sofía.

El hotel se encuentra situado en pleno centro financiero de la capital, a escasos metros de la Bolsa de Madrid, y a 5 minutos a pie del casco histórico.

Sin lugar a duda, el deseo del rey Alfonso XIII de crear un hotel majestuoso se vió cumplido.

Durante casi cien años, el Hotel Ritz Madrid ha dado la bienvenida a las personalidades más representativas de todos los ámbitos: cultura, arte, política, ciencia, moda… El Libro de Oro del Hotel se ha convertido en testigo y testimonio importante de ello.

Esta es una pequeña muestra de algunos de los clientes ilustres del pasado y del presente que han firmado en nuestro Libro de Oro: Rey Alfonso XIII y la Reina Victoria Eugenia ,El Emperador Haile Selassie de Etiopía ,El Rey Jaled de Arabia Saudí , La Reina Sonia de Noruega , El Príncipe de Gales y la Princesa Diana , El Príncipe Raniero y la Princesa Gracia de Mónaco , El Príncipe Naruhito de Japón , El Rey Mohammed VI , El Maharaja de Kapurthala , El Príncipe Ernst August de Hannover , Margaret Thatcher , Fidel Castro , Mijail Gorbachov , Eva Peron , President Jaques Chirac , Kofi Annan , Vladimir Putin , Matta Hari , Romano Prodi , Yaser Arafat , Helmut Kohl , Tony Blair , President Bill Clinton , Nelson Mandela, Herbert von Karajan, Sir George Solti , Cher, Placido Domingo, Marc Anthony , Ana Belen , Madonna , Julio Iglesias , Frank Sinatra, Sting , Arthur Rubinstein , Jennifer Lopez , Elton John , Tina Turner , Brian Ferry , Lorin Maazel , Paul McCartney, Salvador Dali , Alberto Maravia , Fernando Botero, Catherine Deneuve , Sofia Loren , Michael Caine , Pierce Brosnan , Mel Gibson , George Clooney , Milos Forman , Salma Hayek , Nicole Kidman , Ridley Scott , Brad Pitt , Jerry Lewis , Tom Cruise , Monica Bellucci , Dennis Quaid , Sylvester Stallone , Jeremy Irons , Penelope Cruz , Morgan Freeman , Will Smith , Emma Thompson , Harrison Ford , Mel Brooks, Laurence Olivier ,Lesley Howard , Richard Burton , Ava Gardner , Woody Allen , Richard Gere , Roger Moore , Melanie Griffith , Zsa Zsa Gabor ,  Antonio Banderas , Julia Roberts , Henry Fonda , Ben Stiller , Jennifer Connelly , James Stewart , Holly Hunter , Dustin Hoffman , Michelle Pfeiffer , Jodie Foster , Burt Lancaster ,Anthony Hopkins , Marcello Mastroianni , Orson Welles, Alexander Fleming , Christina Onassis , Ivan Trump, David Delfin , Dolce & Gabana , Salvatore Ferraga , Manolo Blanhik , John Galiano.

Más información: http://www.ritz.es/web/orit_es/hotel_ritz_madrid.jsp

People vs. Larry Flint.

Director: Milos Forman.

Guión: Larry Karaszewski, Scott Alexander.

Intérpretes: Woody Harrelson, Courtney Love, Edward Norton, Brett Harrelson, James Cromwell, Crispin Glover.

Música: Thomas Newman.

Fotografía: Phillippe Rousselott.

Canadá-EEUU. 1997. 123 minutos.

Weird american dream

Milos Forman es mucho más que una artesano. Pero como artesano es prodigioso. The People vs Larry Flint es un falso biopic, una aproximación más historiográfica que biográfica al empresario fundador de una de las más prolíficas representantes de la industria pornográfica en América, la revista Hustler. En la descriptiva, prodigiosa media hora inicial asistimos a la construcción del imperio por parte de Flint, pero también al perfil, por decirlo de algún modo, tan excéntrico y paleto del prócer (y de su completa trouppe), pero con un espíritu empresarial emprendedor, que se combinó con la suerte –o no, vistos los acontecimientos que el destino le deparó- para cimentar un auténtico imperio desde una idea. Forman demuestra su sabiduría y buenhacer cinematográfico en el despacho visual de esta historia –sin ir más lejos, fíjense en su pudorosa y a la vez sumamente efectiva concreción de las cuestiones pornográficas-, demuestra un portentoso dominio del ritmo y una magnífica capacidad para la dirección de actores (Woody Harrelson está que se sale, y Courtney Love logra cotas de patetismo realmente intensas).

La cruzada de los ultraconservadores

Pero si decía que no nos hallamos ante un biopic es porque, tras aquella media hora de presentación –que ya per se nos ha obligado a reflexionar, al narrar una historia arquetípica de la concreción del sueño americano, aunque maculada por los debates morales/prejuicios de esa naturaleza pornográfica-, el filme muestra sus cartas, y es para lanzar una doliente y acusadora mirada a la falsa moral de los sectores ultraconservadores americanos y a la vez una gráfica pero elegante –merced de la buena interpretación judicial de Edward Norton- defensa a ultranza de los valores constitucionales referidos a la libertad de expresión. Más gráfica teniendo en cuenta la idiosincrasia del propio protagonista –cuyo caprichoso temperamento y supina incultura el filme no duda en retratar con crudeza, sin falsas tintas, despertando la empatía del espectador más bien por los motivos dramáticos que le conciernen al final de la cinta-, que en principio se erige en un extraño valedor de la libertad de expresión y su ponderación frente a otros intereses, pero que, tras la radiografía social y jurídica que el filme plasma, se revela como clave en el loable discurso que la obra contiene.

La belleza y el dolor

Y la habilidad de Forman se demuestra asimismo en la ágil interacción que promueve entre esa vertiente objetiva (la trama judicial) y el desarrollo progresivamente grotesco y después melodramático de los acontecimientos, en la capacidad analítica de los personajes que Forman deja patente en apenas una concatenación de escenas en el interior de una habitación – con ese explícito y genial elipsis de varios años de encerrona-, o en el tratamiento cada vez más recogido, melancólico, del devenir final de Larry y su esposa, mostrando al espectador –en ese epílogo en el que Larry mira un video en el que su mujer se desnudaba para él- que, más allá de la condición social y cultural, la belleza y el dolor son compartimentos consecutivos en el sino de cualquier existencia humana.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117318/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/people_vs_larry_flynt/

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9400E6D8103EF931A25753C1A960958260

http://www.filmcritic.com/misc/emporium.nsf/reviews/The-People-vs.-Larry-Flynt

http://www.combustiblecelluloid.com/archive/peopleflynt.shtml

http://www.filmscouts.com/scripts/review.cfm?File=peop-vsb

Todas las imágenes pertenecen a sus autores

6.5

di Judd Apatow

Un comico di grande successo ma senza amici scopre con terrore di avere i giorni contati.

Non è la prima volta che la comicità va a braccetto con la morte. Senza scomodare i capolavori del grande Chaplin, Man on the Moon di Milos Forman aveva raccontato, con un realismo e un gusto del grottesco davvero brucianti, proprio questo: come la risata, o meglio la maschera della comicità, possa convivere con la realtà drammatica della malattia e della morte. Judd Apatow, autore del positivo Molto incinta e di una serie di film segnati da una comicità spesso greve e volutamente scorretta, prova a dirigere un film in questa direzione. Film insolito, sia per la durata (quasi due ore e mezza), eccessiva comunque per un film “leggero”, sia per il contenuto a tratti autobiografico. La vicenda è molto semplice: un comico alla prese con una gavetta durissima, Ira (Seth Rogen, già protagonista proprio di Molto incinta), sorta di alter ego proprio del regista, diventa assistente-confidente personale di un comico di grande successo che ha appena scoperto di aver una grave forma di leucemia che non lascia scampo. Seguono vicissitudini lavorative e affettive. Tanti difetti, forse troppi: la lunghezza spropositata in primis, una volgarità esagerata e spesso non necessaria, un doppiaggio che penalizza le molte divertenti battute. Eppure, nonostante gli evidenti limiti, non si può non riconoscere ad Apatow e alla sua combriccola di attori (oltre a Rogen, anche Adam Sandler e molti caratteristi già presenti proprio in Molto incinta) una sincerità di fondo. In particolare il rapporto tra i due protagonisti è molto ben raccontato e approfondito e, dietro allo schermo della volgarità e della battutaccia, evidenzia una reale necessità: la vicinanza di una persona amica, in un mondo spesso tanto ricco di conoscenze e rapporti superficiale quanto denso di solitudine da un punto di vista esistenziale. Il modo non banale, anzi decisamente controcorrente, con cui si risolve la questione affettiva e con cui viene restituita l’immagine di una famiglia che come già in Molto incinta, appare sì problematica (“Nessuno è felice nel matrimonio”, confessa a un certo punto uno dei co-protagonisti, Eric Bana), ma anche ultimamente positiva. E non è certo un caso che la famiglia sia impersonata, come già proprio nel film precedente di Apatow, dai suoi veri famigliari: la moglie, Leslie Mann, e le figlie, su cui lo sguardo della macchina da presa è questa volta, senza infingimenti, carico di dolcezza. Il modo, anche questo tutt’altro che stupido, con cui si racconta il dietro le quinte dello show business e in generale il lavoro oscuro degli autori che lavorano per comici. Il risultato è un film molto denso e molto imperfetto, che spesso bluffa con lo spettatore giocando con il politicamente scorretto a tutti i costi ma che a ben vedere punta molto in alto: raccontare, anche attraverso la battutaccia, la passione per un lavoro nobile come quello del comico, senza dimenticare anche l’altro lato del palcoscenico, quello incasinatissimo della vita, piena di imprevisti, delusioni e speranze come racconta il  finale, questo sì, bellissimo e inaspettato.

Is the first film that brought Miloš Forman international fame and he followed it with such classics as One flew over a cuckoo’s nest(1975) and Amadeus(1984). Forman’s early movies are still very popular among Czechs. Many of the situations and phrases are in common usage: for example, the Czech term zhasnout (to switch lights off) from The Firemen’s Ball, associated with petty theft in the movie, has been used to describe the large-scale asset stripping happening in the country during the 1990s. Having introduced the director let me now get on with my appreciation of the movie.

Loves of a Blonde (Czech: Lásky jedné plavovlásky) is a 1965 Czech film and it works at different layers. On the surface it is a simple story of  Andula, a young factory girl falling head over heels with a traveling musician for whom it is a one night stand. Whereas the girl her whole life she has invested ,-for its emotional depth I can only cite Renoir’s une partie de campagne (1936) for comparison, and must salvage it from falling to pieces.  Unlike Henriette the Czech girl dares to follow it up.

The film begins with the general (’my hooligan love’ a pseudo Beatle number) to the particular musically represented by  ‘Ave Maria’ at the end. The Bach-Gounod number in this case is meant to be a paen to the blond working girl who in her elemental goodness stands as a modern Maria.

It is also a social satire.

The film takes place in the provincial Czech town of Zruc, which Forman sketches in a few shots: a train station, a housing block, a shoe factory that could have been lifted from any of the East European films of the communist era. Andula, the blond protagonist of the film is a worker in the shoe factory, one among some 2000 who outnumbers male population by 16 to one. The film opens with the benign manager of the factory asking army officials to place a regiment in Zruc, as a way of redressing the local imbalance of available males and yearning females. “They need what we needed when we were young,” the manager says to an avuncular Major who can well understand the manager’s predicament. ‘Sex liberates woman from their drudgery and social isolation’ seems to be the watchword and how the government tries to meet the expectations of the female workforce touches the very flaw of party manifesto as written and in practice.

Froman always had a felicity in casting the right actors for the parts. Just as he made the roles of Baron von Sweiten, Count Rosenburg and the valet in Amadeus memorable the three ‘old farts’ of army reservists who try to date the three workers are unforgettable.

In honor of the army reservists brought to the town a party is organized where girls in all sizes and expectations take part. The age old mating game played in the pub has plenty of room for comedy which the director uses to lead the viewer to the heart of the film. Andula catches the eye of the comparatively dashing young pianist, Milda (Vladimir Pucholt). The next morning, the traveling musician assures her repeatedly, “I do not have a girlfriend in Prague.” Milda leaves town, as expected, but Andula has fallen in love with him, and decides to journey to Prague to track him down. A low-key black-and-white ensemble comedy, Loves of a Blonde was cast predominantly with non-professional actors.

In Prague Andula meets the dysfunctional family of Milda and it is clear that in his parents we have the duplicate the blonde and her feckless groom on the making. Forman’s dark comedy must be seen to be enjoyed. His comical sense reaches its best in the part where the parents try to cope with a strange girl who has intruded upon their private space though it is for one night. From that point the director tickles the funnybone, as it were with a scalpel, and only later we realize that whatever future happiness Andula may have with Milda shall only be a downer, an anti-climax to the trite line we are so familiar with, ‘and they lived happily everafter’.

‘Over the course of the three acts, the film’s context evolves from social satire (set in a public space) to emotional intimacy (confined to the private space of a single room and a single bed) to domestic drama (set in the awkward private-public space of a family apartment). The thematic shifts reflect the shifts in setting: the first section is centered on youth and infinite possibility; the second on young adulthood and romantic fulfillment; the third on maturity and inevitable disappointment.’ (DAVE KEHR Feb 12, 2002-criterion collection)
Similar Works
Dolgaya Schastlivaya Zhizn (1966, Gennadiy Shpalikov)
The Pornographers (1966, Shohei Imamura)
Kitchen Stories (2003, Bent Hamer)
The Firemen’s Ball (1967, Milos Forman)
Noa at 17 (1982, Isaac Yeshurun)
Adoption (1975, Márta Mészáros)

( ack: wikipedia,criterion collection, Allmovie)

It was nominated for the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1967. It is also known under an alternate title of A Blonde in Love.

Directed by

Miloš Forman

Produced by

Doro Vlado Hreljanović

Rudolf Hájek

Written by

Miloš Forman

Jaroslav Papoušek

Starring

Hana Brejchová

Vladimír Pucholt

Vladimír Menšík

Music by

Evžen Illín

Running time

90 min.

Language

Czech
(reprinted from cinebuff.wordpress.com)
benny

OUR TOWN: Currently on screen as Graham Abbey’s ex in the crackerjack CBC thriller The Border, Julie Stewart has made some interesting choices since

STEWART: on stage tonight

her CTV Cold Squad series was detoured by CBS. She’s currently on stage here at the Factory Theatre starring in Brad Fraser’s rave-winning new comedy True Love Lies. Be warned: Fraser’s new eyebrow-raiser closes in two weeks, so order those tickets now … writer-actor-vintner Dan Aykroyd and his pop Peter Aykroyd, a father-and-son duo to celebrate, sit down with Indigo chief Heather Reissman tonight at 7 pm at the Manulife store to discuss Aykroyd Sr.’s new book, A History Of Ghosts. Sounds like a sensational gift for Hallo’een … and director Ruba Nadda told audiences at the opening of Cairo Time here

AYKROYD: at Indigo tonight

last weekend that shooting the romantic drama in Egypt was a logistical nightmare, made even more excruciating by the extreme heat. “Much of the time when we were shooting,” she recalled with a grimace, “it was 50C.”  However, she added, while the rest of the cast sweltered under a relentless sun, the film’s star Patricia Clarkson continued to remain calm, collected and, well, almost cool. “Patricia is a southerner, born in New Orleans,” Ms Nadda explained admiringly. “The woman doesn’t perspire!”

PRIVACY POLICY: During her visit to T.O. last week Meryl Streep said she has always strived to keep her private life private. “I just have never been

CLARKSON: no sweat

comfortable using my children as little props to make me interesting or darling or whatever I’m supposed to be,” she told interviewer Johanna Schneller. Streep, who is married to sculptor Don Gummer, said she’s unhappy when journalists ask her to talk about him. “Don doesn’t want me to talk about him in a ladies magazine, you know. He’s a serious artist who has a life that doesn’t deserve to be reduced to a caption.”

La Streep is en route to Rome where she will be awarded the Marcus Aurelius award for lifetime achievement at the fourth annual Rome Film Festival. She’ll

STREEP: off to Rome

participate in an onstage conversation about her career spanning back to her very first film, 1977’s Julia. Jane Fonda was already cast as Lillian Hellman when legendary director Fred Zinneman flew Streep to London to test for the title role. When he gave it to Vanessa Redgrave instead, he asked Streep if she would be willing to play one of the smaller roles. “And of course I would have been willing to do their laundry!” And the rest, as they say, is history.  Previous recipients of the Marcus Aurelius award include Al Pacino and Sean Connery, and Czech director Milos Forman is president of the six-member jury. The festival, also known as the Rome Film Feast, opens tonight.

IT’S NOT ALL THAT FUNNY TO HIM: Monty Python alumnus-cum-laude John Cleese, back on the boards in a blatantly autobiographical one-man show,

CLEESE: on tour

calls his new theatrical venture his “How to Finance Your Divorce Tour.” He says he needs money because of the expensive divorce settlement with Alyce Eichelberger – but is he bitter? Well, okay, maybe a little. “I’m paying $20 million to a woman I believe is the love child of Bernie Madoff and Heather Mills!” snorts the 70-year-old funnyman. “Imagine how much I would have had to pay if Alyce had contributed anything to the relationship – such as children or a conversation!”

Ouch!

TOMORROW:

Roseanne’s TV sibling returns to the Great White Way.

-/-

Para finalizar a série de textos sobre a Czech New Wave que publiquei nesse último mês, faço um resumo com alguns aspectos mais pontuais do novo cinema produzido na Tchecoslováquia durante a década de 1960. Antes, coloco os links para todos os textos publicados.

Os amores de Miloš Forman

Sonhos e pesadelos

Jan Němec e os encontros com o absurdo

As Pequenas Margaridas

As imagens de Věra

Valerie & Her Week of Wonders

Um Dia, Um Gato

Žert

Jiří Menzel e a impotência de uma nação

O Kral Majales

o início

Não existe um início tão demarcado da Czech New Wave, não houve nenhum momento emblemático como a consagração da Nouvelle Vague de Truffaut no Festival de Cannes em 1959, ou os manifestos do Free Cinema e do Novo Cinema Alemão. O que caracteriza o começo da Czech New Wave é a estréia de cineastas que, entre 1963 e 1964, propunham uma ruptura à estética do Realismo Socialista que imperava na produção cinematográfica do país. Entre os importantes nomes que debutaram nesse período estão Miloš Forman, Vera Chytilová, Jaromil Jireš e Jan Němec.

o fim

O final da Czech New Wave é um fato político. Após a invasão dos tanques soviéticos em Praga, em 1968, os responsáveis pela produção cinematográfica do país (que era totalmente bancada pelo governo) foram trocados. A pequena abertura política que abriu espaço para as rupturas do cineastas tchecoslovacos foi substituída pela truculência do socialismo. Em 1969 praticamente todos os filmes dos cineastas identificados à Czech New Wave foram banidos. Diversas produções foram interrompidas no meio e alguns diretores proibidos de fazer cinema. O crítico de cinema Peter Hames coloca o filme Morgiana (1972), de Juraj Herz, a última parceria com o genial diretor de fotografia Jaroslav Kucera, como uma espécie de epitáfio do movimento. Outro filme que pode ser visto como um belo canto dos cisnes é a obra-prima Valerie & Her Week of Wonders (1970), de Jaromil Jireš. O conto de fadas surrealista traz diversos elementos explorados pela Czech New Wave que acabaram desaparecendo no decorrer da década de 70.

os antecessores

Há uma série de cineastas anteriores à renovação da década de 1960 que, de certa forma, anteciparam algumas preocupações estéticas da Czech New Wave. Entre os principais nomes, estão Frantisek Vlacil de O Pombo Branco (1960), e Marketa Lazarová (1967), Vojtech Jasný de Um Dia, Um Gato (1963) e Todos Bons Cidadãos (1969), Elmar Klos de A Pequena Loja da Rua Principal (1965) e Karel Kachyna de A Orelha (1970). Filmes como Um Dia, Um Gato e, principalmente, o épico surrealista Marketa Larazová (considerado por muita gente o melhor filme tcheco de todos os tempos) estavam em completa sintonia formal e temática com as obras da nova geração.

a ruptura

A ruptura provocada pelo cinema da Czech New Wave é clara: fazer algo oposto aos filmes que seguiam à risca o Realismo Socialista, condição dominante das produções de diversos países do Leste Europeu naquele período. Em entrevistas, Miloš Forman costuma comentar que em seus primeiros trabalhos, queria mostrar uma face mais verdadeira da juventude de seu país, algo que ele não via nas produções anteriores, por isso a influência do cinema-verité. Não deveria existir o filtro heróico do Realismo Socialista. Essa ruptura, em outros casos, atingiu tons bem mais agudos, como é o caso de Jan Němec e Věra Chytilová, que fizeram de sua produção surrealista um episódio ímpar da cinematografia dos anos 60.

absurdo

A tendência ao absurdo foi o grande marco do cinema tchecoslovaco dos anos 60. Cineastas como Jan Němec e Věra Chytilová não economizaram esforços para desorientar olhares em obras como A Festa e Os Convidados (1966), de Němec, e Fruto do Paraíso (1969), de Věra. O surrealismo, o Teatro do Absurdo e o realismo mágico da literatura tcheca do entre-guerras exerciam forte influência sobre a produção cinematográfica do país. Durante a década, houve uma efervescência absurdista, motivada pelas arriscadas encenações de peças de Eugène Ionesco e Samuel Beckett, além das primeiras traduções dos livros de Franz Kafka, nascido em Praga, para o idioma tcheco. Como disse o crítico espanhol Angel Quintana: “a recuperação da obra de Kafka representou uma reabilitação do sentimento do absurdo e serviu para estabelecer uma conexão entre o absurdo Kafkiano e o absurdo gerado pelo totalitarismo”.

devětsil

A grande referência vanguardista da Czech New Wave foi o Devětsil, grupo surrealista tchecoslovaco, cuja produção entre as décadas de 20 e 40 foi bastante representativa no país. Amigos de colégio, os principais integrantes do Devětsil começaram a se reunir, influenciados pelo Dada, após a Primeira Guerra Mundial. Entre os principais nomes, estão Karel Teige, que posteriormente desenvolveu estudos no campo do design e da arquitetura; Vítězslav Nezval, poeta, amigo de André Breton, que lançou livros importantes como Valerie & Her Week of Wonders (1935) e o erótico Edition 69 (1931); e Vladislav Vančura, uma das mentes mais ativas do movimento, responsável por roteiros, filmes, textos teatrais e livros como Marketa Lazarová (1931) e Um Verão Caprichado (1925), ambos filmados nos anos 60. A tradição do Devětsil ainda foi relembrada no filme Um Dia, Um Gato, cujo protagonista é interpretado por Jan Werich, famoso ator das peças surrealistas do grupo.

literatura

O surgimento dos novos cineastas estava estreitamente ligado ao nascimento da nova literatura tchecolosvaca dos anos 60. Era todo um contexto de renovação. E muitos filmes foram baseados em livros daquele período. Peter Hames cataloga nada menos que vinte e quatro obras nascidas da literatura. Entre as mais importantes, estão a parceria entre Jaromil Jireš e Milan Kundera em A Piada (1969) e entre Jiří Menzel e Bohumil Hrabal em Trens Estreitamente Vigiados (1966) e Andorinhas Por Um Fio (1969). Hrabal ainda teve o seu livro de contos Pérolas das Profundezas transformado no irregular filme de episódios de mesmo nome, lançado em 1965, com curtas de Menzel, Chytilová, Schorm, Němec e Jireš. O interessante das adaptações é que, muitas vezes, o roteiro do filme era desenvolvido em parceria pelo diretor e o autor do livro, como é o caso de A Piada, finalizado antes mesmo de sua versão literária.

fuga

Uma característica forte da Czech New Wave é a fuga da grandes cidades tchecoslovacas. Com exceção de Miloš Forman e Evald Schorm, que trabalharam uma temática mais urbana, a grande maioria dos cineastas realizou suas obras em vilarejos, florestas e pequenos povoados. É o caso de Iluminação Íntima (1965), de Ivan Passer, Valerie  & Her Week of Wonders, Um Verão Caprichado, Trens Estreitamente Vigiados, Fruto do Paraíso, Marketa Lazarová, Um Dia, Um Gato, entre vários outros. O afastamento das cidades, além de favorecer o desenvolvimento de personagens, no sentido de sua representatividade alegórica, também era um marco da apropriação surrealista do conto de fadas, uma tradição literária que muitos filmes tchecoslovacos assumiram.

traumas

Há dois fortes traumas que permeiam a produção da Czech New Wave. Um tópico inevitável foi a Segunda Guerra Mundial. Foram quatro filmes importantes sobre o assunto: Diamantes da Noite (1964), de Jan Němec, A Pequena Loja da Rua Principal (1965), de Kadár e Klos, Trens Estreitamente Vigiados (1966), de Jiří Menzel, e O Cremador (1969), de Juraj Herz. Exceto a obra de Němec, todos os outros mostram um pouco da fácil submissão dos tchecoslovacos aos nazistas, em muitos casos, tendo que entregar amigos ou até mesmo familiares para os campos de concentração. O interessante é que esse trauma moral não foi transformado em espetáculos dramáticos pela Czech New Wave. Pelo contrário, a auto-ironia é o que dá o tom das obras. A diferença fica por conta da abordagem angustiante de Jan Němec em Diamantes da Noite, quando dois jovens precisam fugir de nazistas numa floresta. Memória e alucinação se misturam no primeiro filme do diretor. O trauma de 1968, quando a União Soviética invadiu a Tchecoslováquia para acabar com onda libertária que eclodiu com a Primavera de Praga, foi rapidamente transformado em produção. No ano seguinte, choveram filmes que denunciavam diretamente os desmandos do socialismo. Filmes como Andorinhas por um Fio e A Piada, buscavam na violência Stalinista da década de 50, a crítica aguda à hipocrisia do socialismo soviético. A Orelha, de 1970, é devastador. O filme se passa, praticamente em sua totalidade, dentro de um apartamento de um casal extremamente paranóico que precisa apagar qualquer pista de uma possível traição ao partido. Nem é preciso dizer que os três filmes foram banidos.

olhares

Na segunda metade da década de 60, a Tchecoslováquia chamou atenção do mundo inteiro com a efervescência cultural e a violenta invasão soviética, comandada pelo secretário geral do Partido Comunista, Leonid Brezhnev. Jean-Luc Godard e Constantin Costa-Gavras, dois cineastas que respiravam temas políticos naquele momento, voltaram seus olhares à questão. Em Pravda, filme de 1969 que Godard realizou com seu Grupo Dziga Vertov, o cineasta aproveitou uma temporada em Praga e, clandestinamente, fez uma das obras mais fracas de sua fase maoísta. Tanto que ele só finalizou pela insistência de Jean-Pierre Gorin. O mais relevante de Pravda é a posição controversa de Godard sobre a situação tchecoslovaca. Para o francês, antes mesmo dos tanques soviéticos, o país já havia sido invadido pela cultura ocidental imperialista. A própria Věra Chitylová, que aparece no filme, é colocada como uma versão local da Paramount. Costa-Gavras, ao contrário, fez de A Confissão (1970) uma forte crítica à truculência e ao anti-sionismo dos julgamentos forjados do período Stalinista. Há um personagem que acaba preso durante quinze anos por crimes políticos que não cometeu. A última imagem do filme, extremamente emblemática, traz uma pichação de 1968 que diz: “Brezhnev está louco”.

prêmios

Dois rebentos da Czech New Wave levaram Oscar de Melhor Filme Estrangeiro: A Pequena Loja da Rua Principal, em 1965, e Trens Estreitamente Vigiados, em 1967. Antes de colecionar prêmios da Academia na sua fase norte-americana, Miloš Forman bateu na trave duas vezes com suas produções tchecas: Amores de Uma Loira e O Baile dos Bombeiros (1967) foram indicados. Em Cannes, Um Dia, Um Gato levou o prêmio especial da crítica em 1963 (empatado com Harakiri, de Masaki Kobayashi). O prêmio mais simbólico, entretanto, foi o de melhor diretor no Festival de Berlim de 1990 para Jiří Menzel. O filme? Andorinhas Por Um Fio, banido desde 1969. Assim como ocorreu com o filme de Menzel, após fim do comunismo no Leste Europeu, muitas obras puderam novamente respirar.

bibliografia

Não existe muita bibliografia específica sobre a Czech New Wave. Além dos diversos livros lançados nos Estados Unidos, França e Espanha sobre os Novos Cinemas dos anos 60, há The Czechoslovak New Wave, do crítico inglês Peter Hames, que traz uma análise bem aprofundada do movimento e dos contextos cultural e político daquele período. Também vale a pena dar uma olhada nas entrevistas do livro Czech New Wave Filmmakers in Interviews. É um ótimo livro para entender um pouco mais as cabeças distintas que regeram a explosão cinematográfica da Tchecoslováquia nos anos 60.

“Mister McMurphy, this ward is a democratic community run by the patients and their votes, so you should feel at ease in your new surroundings to the extent you can freely discuss emotional problems in front of the patients and staff. However, the cardinal rule, and I must emphasize this: Everyone keeps their seat during the meeting!“
- Miss Ratched

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
Written by: Lawrence Hauben and Bo Goldman,
based on the novel by Ken Kesey.

This is a beat by beat analysis of a group meeting scene from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest using Frank Daniel’s method of 8 sequences (with 3-6 given in two sequences rather than four). I’ll be looking at hierarchy between the characters and how McMurphy tries to bring change into the rigid system of the psychiatric ward.

Summary of the scene: Miss Ratched is conducting another group meeting when McMurphy wants to have a vote on creating a new game room and changing the next day’s schedule in order to watch the World Series. The first vote is successful and McMurphy gets his way (although with a trial period) but the vote on watching the ballgame is lost. As in the rest of the story, McMurphy tries to challenge and change the system but success is unlikely.

On hierarchy

McMurphy is in a mental hospital trying to avoid prison. By this point in the film he has not yet realised what he is up against – the rigid system, the nature of authority, and where his place is in that system. Throughout the film as McMurphy learns about the rules and restrictions, he keeps testing the boundaries and trying to bring change into it according to his own needs and desires. The main conflict in the story takes place between a system and an individual and the whole plot is composed around hierarchy: like in the story as a whole, in each individual scene there’s some sort of hierarchy between the characters. This is common in most films but expressed with particular clarity in this one as it is part of the main theme. In the ward, Big Nurse (Miss Ratched) is in control and before McMurphy’s arrival her authority has not been challenged. Not by staff, not by patients. McMurphy is an outsider who enters a world alien to him; he upsets the natural balance of the psychiatric ward by bringing his own will and desire for freedom into the equation, trying to change it to match his lifestyle. His goal is not to throw Miss Ratched off the top of the hierarchy but to simply have his own way. He doesn’t mind the system but he doesn’t want to be controlled. The other characters – the patients and the staff – are not fighting for a higher place in the hierarchy but take sides with either Big Nurse or McMurphy with the patients remaining in lower ranks throughout (they either have no will to rebel in the name of individualism or have joined the system voluntarily). Big Nurse and McMurphy are equal enemies as they both have a right to fight for what they want (McMurphy probably less so as his wants are not appropriate for the setting which is an excellent type of combination for a dramatic story as is the balance between the two opposing forces): McMurphy has a right to have a free will and Miss Ratched has a right to protect the status quo of the ward.

McMurphy’s rebellion has a natural development throughout the story: first, as he is brought in, he is oblivious of the system (he knows it’s a closed institution but doesn’t know about the strict routine and the tools for implementing the rules (pills, shots, Electro-Shock Therapy)) and he thinks this is his escape from prison; he then becomes acquainted with the system as he’s taken through the daily routines and he and the audience can see how the system works; when McMurphy first tries to change something he fails because he has no supporters and the routine is so deep-seated he’s powerless; bit by bit he wins the other patients to his side and manages several small wins that culminate with an escape and a boat trip – McMurphy has broken out of the system but it’s a false resolution because everyone goes back to the hospital and the routine continues more firmly than before. The more he rebels, the higher the stakes get, the more impossible the obstacles, until he causes his own irreversible demise not only as a patient but as a human being.

The scene analysed takes place just as McMurphy is beginning to realise where he is and just before he learns how long he will have to stay there. It’s the second group meeting scene in the script and by comparing it to the first one we can see how the plot has been set up. The first group meeting scene sets up the rules: everyone must obey or there will be consequences, no one is allowed to leave their seat and the whole process is tightly controlled by Miss Ratched who claims it’s a democratic ward. The scene at hand is about the attempt to change the rules. McMurphy wants to have a vote – to change the schedule, so that they can watch baseball. McMurphy doesn’t attack the system but plays by the book which contributes to his character: he’s clever and tries to use the rules to his own benefit. In the previous group meeting scene he was told that the ward is democratic and change can only happen when the patients vote on it, so that’s what he does in order to get what he wants. (Note: this scene is handled differently in the film, and we’ll look at how it has benefited from the changes later). The dramatic question of the scene is: will McMurphy bring about change, or more precisely: will McMurphy have the schedule changed for the ballgame? (The latter is more obvious in the film version of the scene.) His antagonist is Miss Ratched whose job it is to keep order in the ward and have everyone follow the rules to the letter.

The Scene

I The Routine

1. A group meeting is in progress but Cheswick is not sitting. Big Nurse tells him to sit. Cheswick refuses.
   Comment: We know from the earlier group meeting scene that everyone has to sit and take part or they will be ‘handled’ by nurses.
2. Cheswick demands to have his cigarettes and looks to Mack (McMurphy) for help. McMurphy doesn’t respond.
   Comment: Every man for himself. Cheswick is not as strong as McMurphy and can’t persuade the authority figures by himself. The problem is also too trivial for McMurphy to step in. Cheswick doesn’t have what it takes to fight the system and Big Nurse stays at the top of hierarchy.
3. a) Big Nurse tells Cheswick to sit down. Cheswick sits.b) Big Nurse tells him he should’ve thought of that before he gambled the cigarettes away. Cheswick sulks.
   c) Big Nurse wants to know if Cheswick understands. He does.
   Comment: Cheswick does everything he’s told and agrees with everything that Big Nurse says. Big Nurse makes Cheswick feel guilty, responsible for his own problem and Cheswick’s silence means he agrees or is powerless to argue.  As in the earlier group meeting scene, Cheswick is shown his place by Big Nurse just as Bancini was at the end of the scene (Bancini became distressed and received a shot from the nurses to calm him down).  The audience and the characters know that there will be consequences if someone breaks the rules. So Cheswick obeys without making a big fuss.
   
   II Confrontation
4. Big Nurse starts talking about Mr. Harding’s problem with his wife to continue the discussion from the previous meeting. McMurphy puts his hand up and asks permission to get something off his chest. Big Nurse gives him permission.
   Comment: turning point as McMurphy won’t let Miss Ratched get back to the meeting. After the introduction it will become clear that the scene is between McMurphy and Big Nurse. The dramatic question will be raised during this part of the scene.
5. a) McMurphy reminds Big Nurse of the democratic “something” that was mentioned earlier and wants to get something off his chest. Big Nurse gives him permission.
   b) McMurphy gets out a paper (he’s prepared). He first says it would be wonderful if the music was turned up louder. Dr. Spivey nods, Big Nurse remains stoic, and some patients are bewildered.
   Comment: Big Nurse is the only person who doesn’t respond. It is part of her character to be calculating, patient and in control at all times. McMurphy is playing with Big Nurse – he’s being very polite which is not like him, so it’s just a way of approaching the authority figures in order to persuade them.
6. McMurphy then says the music is already too loud for having a conversation. The patients agree. Big Nurse waits.
7. McMurphy proposes a solution – to have a new separate game room for the ‘young fellows’. Dr. Spivey agrees.
   Comment: the dramatic question of the scene has been raised – will McMurphy change the routine?
   III Rising action
   
8. Dr. Spivey asks Big Nurse what she thinks. Big Nurse asks whether there are personnel for a second day room. Dr. Spivey thinks it can be managed.
9. Dr. Spivey asks the patients what they think. They agree. Big Nurse agrees but only with a trial period.
   Comment: There’s a difference between when Big Nurse asks the patients’ opinion and when Dr. Spivey does so. Miss Ratched’s questions seem intimidating, forcing the patients talk about things that are difficult or they don’t want to talk about. When Dr. Spivey asks their opinion, it’s about something that they want. Dr. Spivey seems to come down to the same level with the patients whereas Miss Ratched always looks down upon them. She’s in charge and nothing will change just because it will make someone happy.
   These beats lead McMurphy closer to what he wants. His proposition goes through (almost) and his reach for the top of the hierarchy is only undermined by Miss Ratched’s agreement to a trial period. She is still in control. 
   
10. Big Nurse takes the conversation back to Mr. Harding’s problem when McMurphy raises his hand again – he’s not finished.
    Comment: Another turning point as McMurphy won’t let Miss Ratched get back to the group discussion. McMurphy’s interruptions begin to look like a passive-aggressive attack.
    
11. McMurphy suggests a vote to shift the next day’s meeting to a later time, so that they could watch the World Series on TV. Big Nurse disagrees – the daily routine can’t be changed.
    Comment: McMurphy takes his demands further. The first request was a break-through, now he wants more. This is met by an absolute refusal by Big Nurse. She doesn’t want to let him causes any more changes. This is the midpoint of the scene.  
    
    IV Falling Action
12. McMurphy doesn’t care about the schedule, they can go back to it right after the game has finished; he wants a vote. Cheswick supports him. Big Nurse agrees.
    Comment: Falling Action implies that the obstacles get bigger than the character can handle. McMurphy stands his ground. As a little turning point the Big Nurse seems to give in by agreeing to have a vote. But it seems too easy and it feels like there’s something behind her reason to agree (which we’ll see in a minute).
13. They vote. Only two hands go up. Big Nurse points out that that’s not enough to change the ward policy.
    Comment: McMurphy has failed. Despite having his way and having a vote, he’s still powerless because he doesn’t have support from other patients.

    
    
    V Climax
    

14. Big Nurse asks McMurphy whether there’s anything else he wants to discuss. He says no.
    Comment: Big Nurse wants to seem generous by trying to appear concerned and helpful. McMurphy has lost and he’s given in. The character decides to take no further action and therefore the resolution for McMurphy in this scene is that he’s accepted Miss Ratched’s control (this is where the scene in the film changes direction.)VI Resolution
    
15. Big Nurse wants to go back to Mr. Harding’s problem and asks if anyone wants to begin. No one does.
    Comment: During the whole scene, the main event is having a group meeting and discussing Mr. Harding’s problem. The constants interruptions have helped to create tension as one character wants to do something but the action is continuously put back. Now that Miss Ratched finally gets to proceed, she is ignored by patients.
16. Mr. Harding starts talking about his problem, going into an incoherent monologue about the function of the relationship and his existence. Martini interrupts with a question about buying hotels (from the game of Monopoly earlier).
    Comment: Mr. Harding shares his problem with the group. The complete indifference by the group is illustrated by the one question asked which has nothing to do with him. The status quo of the ward has not been changed.

____________________________________________________________

Script vs. Film

The scene in the film (directed by Milos Forman) takes a different turn. First, the vote for the separate game room is left out and they go right to the problem of watching the game. Secondly, McMurphy is taken very close to his objective by giving him nearly half the votes – they have a tie. This creates tension as first he has to urge others in the group to raise their hand and he (and the audience) believes he’s won, but he hasn’t taken into account the other patients in the ward – and they have a tie. So, instead of having the character near his goal with a different question (will he get the new game room?), the goal applies to the whole scene and the near-win is part of that same goal (to watch the ballgame). McMurphy needs just one more vote and he starts going around the ward to fish for that one decisive vote. There has been a series of reversals as McMurphy experiences near-wins and set-backs. Finally, he goes to Chief Bromden and after a lot of jumping and shouting manages to get him to raise his hand but by that time the meeting has adjourned – another reversal brings the confrontation to an end and McMurphy seems to have lost (the ‘false resolution’). He goes to sit in front of the TV set and suddenly starts yelling at it like there’s a game on. Other patients are first confused but then join in. This is a more active resolution to the scene and illustrates a development in McMurphy’s attitude – he hasn’t given in. So despite not getting the permission to watch the ballgame, his actions expresses a kind of imaginary victory over Miss Ratched (which also echoes the end of the film where McMurphy has failed but his goal is achieved by another character). In the scene from the screenplay, McMurphy gives up too easily and he’s not even part of the resolution of the scene, and Miss Ratched’s tight grip of power remains unaltered. In order for the plot to develop further, the main character needs to have a series of wins and set-backs during the events that lead to more substantial success or complete failure; otherwise the story is standing still. In addition, Dr. Spivey seems to disappear in the scene which is probably the reason he’s left out of the scene in the film.

reż. Milos Forman
scen. Milos Forman i Ivan Passer
wyst. Ladislav Jakim, Pavla Martinkova, Vladimir Pucholt, Jan Vostrcil, itd

Historia o inicjacji (pierwsza praca, pierwsza miłość), ale nieudanej. Głównie z winy specyficznego charakteru Piotrusia, ale też ogólnego stanu starszego pokolenia, które jakoś nie bardzo ma receptę (chociaż symbolika stopklatki w ostatniej scenie pozostaje dla mnie niejasna). Ale analizy na bok. Bo Czarnego Piotrusia cenimy nie za to, że mówi coś o życiu, tylko za to, że jest fajny, ma śmieszne epizody i sympatyczne postaci. I zabawne dialogi – jak ten o szczęśliwych płomieniach liżących ciało Pavly, albo o pani z obrazu, która ma zamknięte oczy ale dobrze wie co robi. I tak dalej.

A najśmieszniejsze jest to [bluźnierstwo alert!], że Czarny Piotruś jest sto razy lepszy od najwybitniejszych dzieł neorealizmu.