The treatment of people suffering from mental health issues or illnesses has a long history of inadequacies. We have long struggled with how to treat people who refuse or are unable to conform to the rules, norms and minimum standards of behaviour. You may be crazy, but as long as you are able to partake in a little behavioural self censorship then, thank goodness, you’ll not bother anyone and get along in life JUST FINE. There is a varied and often unsettling history of films that record or tell such stories. and although there are many reasons for such work it has always been clear to me that they offer up an opportunity for us to ask ourselves what makes these people so unpalatable or unsettling to the rest of us that they are in almost all cases segregated from outdoor, everyday life. Is it their unpredictability, or their inability or unwillingness to conform to our expectations of ‘rational’ behaviour? Cognitive differences along with mental health have been explored in exploitative films like ‘Freaks’ (1932- where there was a fairground element of exposing an unknown world to the general public) to sympathetic works of genius like ‘Harvey’ (1950, more the tradition of the arts of depicting ‘the fool’ as having a peculiar brand of wisdom which is beyond the rest of us- a “who is really crazy though, me or YOU?” movie- is it saner to be mad? Are we mad to be sane? The movie adaptation of Catch 22 (1970) is another example of this, the trailer for which sums this up perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unn8fgs8fao “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has both of these elements, and is possibly the best example of each. The performances instantly stand out as unique- Jack Nicholson had already shown himself to be very capable (having broken out in Easy Rider, (1969) and Five Easy Pieces (1970) but this is undoubtedly his first truly great performance. The part may not have been written for him (it was a 1962 novel), but there are times after watching when you find yourself asking the question every actor wishes would be asked after a performance: how much was McMurphy, and how much was Nicholson? Much of the action is improvised, lines were written and delivered, but not always and not necessarily the way they were written down. This gives the entire film a more realistic feel. Having come off the back of making ‘Easy Rider’ (1969) where he, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Terry Southern created a film which had not just improvised dialogue or scenes, but used real drugs on film while meandering through a somewhat improvised plot and plenty of madness to boot. Nicholson was the perfect choice for “One Flew…” Transferred from prison in the opening scene, McMurphy rarely leaves the grounds from that point onwards. Jack Nitzsche’s soundtrack, a gentle mix of classical and modern pieces with plenty of Theremin, is unnerving. It tells you to expect something different- these sounds open the movie and set you up for the ride. The film introduces the inmates and each of their predicaments and states through their interactions with McMurphy who will not settle for small talk. His need to get to the truth, however uncomfortable it makes people, whoever he might hurt along the way, is both empowering and squirm inducing. The ward where we spend most of the movie is quietly, cruelly controlled by Nurse Ratched, but she is shaken by McMurphy’s very presence. He is a shining light of justice and rebellion in the institution, causing many inmates to be revealed to be perfectly functioning in many ways, far from what Nurse Ratched would have them believe- a weak, malleable, vulnerable group that must not think for itself. For their own good, of course. We are swept up in their journey from this state to one where they (and we) might dare hope, having experienced a tantalising taste of purpose and dare I say a quest. The violence which ends this journey is shocking, and is where the crux of the power of this film lies. You might not want to be in the same room as him, or even like him all that much, but he is a character you can’t help but love. I believe this to be because there is a piece of McMurphy in all of us, the outspoken, principled rebel who takes no shit, who relentlessly bounces back after a setback and sticks it to the man at any given opportunity. Watching this film, seeing that flawed but heroic part of you is finally ‘free’ on screen is a therapeutic experience, McMurphy certainly switched something on inside of me, albeit mostly during the running time. We hold back this element of our character to varying degrees, and so we are sane. We don’t let him out of the little box he inhabits in our head, as much as we occasionally want to, because we are afraid it will compromise OUR sanity. He has a power that we are afraid of. The Nurse Ratched in our heads wins on a daily basis, preferring order and control over progress and creativity, because it is easier and we believe we will be more easily accepted in this sedated state. This film helps us question this unnatural, glory-less unnatural order, and whether you see it this way or not you will have more questions than answers after watching. Sometimes, this feeling is the very best that can come of any work of art. EveryBestPicture.com revisits this Oscar Best Picture winner
A picture about and of divorce in 1970’s New York. The most civilised place to end a marriage, at that time. Kramer vs Kramer is a stunning snapshot in time of how a marriage might fail in a world where men and women could both be educated to a similarly high degree. Each were taught to expect that they could remain equal partners in life, but would then face the reality that society still expected women to fulfil a certain role. That role required both to revert to traditional breadwinner/homemaker stereotypes which were all too easy to slip into. This clash of expectations is depicted through the story of the Kramers, Mr (Dustin Hoffman) & Mrs (Meryl Streep). These two actors are, perhaps, the finest of their generation and although Hoffman was at the peak of his powers this was Streep's first motion picture. I was astounded to find this out after watching and after hearing how she repeatedly pressed for more depth in Mrs K's character (I like to research post-viewing). Her first film. It could be argued that Streep has never dipped below the heights reached in this performance, a debut to be envied. The performances of the leads were delivered in their trademark naturalistic, usually method, style and demand high praise. I am happy to add to a pile of hysterically positive reviews that continues to grow nearly 40 years after the release. All this praise for the leads and the supporting cast was just as strong. Justin Henry (as their son, Billy Kramer- one of the youngest to be nominated for the Best Actor statuette) and Jane Alexander also put in an unshakeable effort. This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the Director (Robert Benton) deserves his fair share of praise. Probably not a name you are too familiar with, but you will certainly recognise his credits as a writer: Bonnie and Clyde; What’s Up, Doc?; Superman (1979- the original). He has been involved in very few projects since, which is a shame for us. His choice of when to use close-ups, medium and wide shots are so natural that you quite honestly forget you are watching a film. The longest shots by far are of the married couple meeting in the park when Mr K. hands Billy over to Mrs K. and Billy runs from him to her, leaving Mr K. standing alone, the shot from a distance making him smaller and more alone than anyone else has been in the film up to that point. A director whose naturalistic style perfectly complimented the production. We are invited in to the conversations with close ups, into the courtroom by placing us in the public gallery, every scene has carefully chosen angles to provide a view that one might have if they were actually present. The sexual politics are dated, but to the modern viewer this actually aides the piece. The idea of this being a snapshot in time is compounded by the traditional (/simplistic) approach by the courts. Mr K. arguing with the court “why can’t a woman have the same ambitions as a man?” and suggesting that we are not set up as a society to enable this without a significant amount of express willingness from everyone directly involved (spouse, employer, families, friends). Hearing this from Mr. K makes him heroic, although he is simply arguing for a logical approach. “How reasonable of him!” we exclaim, whereas had the exact same argument been put by Mrs K our attitude may well have been to think that there’s probably a bit of self interest there. This exposes the impossible situation mothers found (and find) themselves in: “Tsk. How privileged she is, to argue for equality!”. Juxtaposing this with the line “what makes a woman a better parent…because of her sex?” in the same speech moments later gives everyone pause for thought to evaluate whether their opinion on the matter comes from personal experience or a logical approach. The film is suggesting that we can’t possibly say what is right for the child (or the couple) by applying blanket statements like “A mother makes a better parent” or “a child needs their father’s presence no matter what”, but that we should have an approach which takes the rights and merits of each person and their position on a case by case basis, regardless of assumptions we make based on sex. This went against the grain of a system which, at least in part, made (/makes) divorce difficult in order discourage it. While singing its praises, we should also be aware of the recently exposed controversies surrounding the method acting on set. Hoffman is alleged to have slapped Streep in a scene, repeatedly raised the recent death of her real-life fiancé to heighten emotion and also smashed a wine glass within inches of her face (see my handmade GIF, above) without any warning or previous discussion, in order to illicit what he thought would be raw emotion. She has since mentioned it as an unfortunate by product of the art (“when you're an actor, you're in a scene, you have to feel free”… but asserted that he “overstepped”). This is extremely magnanimous, considering that she was virtually powerless as a woman in her first ever movie role to confront a man as powerful (whether he was aware of it or not) and as well respected as Hoffman was at the time. It is a shame that the sexual politics of the production were not as forward thinking or understanding as that of the film itself, but this was long before #MeToo. Streep, playing an absent mother and also absent from many of the scenes, had to fight for her character in production to be presented in a more sympathetic light. Much of the credit for the film’s success should go her way, as with this ambiguity (not a simple good father vs bad mother angle, which the script tended towards) we find ourselves torn and more willing to understand both parties. That is largely where the film’s success lies: there is no denying that this is a story of both parents’ struggles told from the father's perspective, but both sides are given oxygen in the final act. This allows you to make of the denouement what you will. It is a fine balancing act for writer/director Benton. We are clearly invited to reach a certain conclusion on watching it but there is an effort to allow you to reach it by yourself, which is the most rewarding of feelings for an audience. Kramer vs Kramer may be an Oscar best picture winner which passed you by. Neither the topic (divorce) nor the poster (top) are inspiring or inviting and it is rarely referred to as ‘one to watch’. But this is an ensemble effort executed with aplomb. Knowing that equal credit is due to all those involved only adds to the big picture and overall sense of satisfaction. I have little doubt that you will be glad you took the time to watch it, and is rare that one can say this with such confidence. With thanks to Carolina Lins who requested this review
|
Previous ReviewsComing soon:Archives
February 2019
Categories
All
AuthorPablo Griffiths is a man with a passion for many things. He has recently taken an interest in writing about film, and himself in the third person. |