She’s a c**t but can you blame her we only witnessed the highest functioning patients too and mcmurphy provokes her over and over until she’s had enough
I do not forgive her for what she did to wormtongue. She took out her rage on him because she knew she could get a result, that he was vulnerable, and because she knew he had seen through the institutionalized lies she willingly enforces.
We can sympathize that these nurses, if they come in without a natural empathetic and human-connecting sense required for dealing with these people, were trained by a medical system that had a very poor conception of what mental illness is and how it can be treated to give more people a better shot at living independently.
But we can also fairly-well tell that she was a sadistic c**t unto herself, whether that was conditioned by dealing with down-the-road whackos and the emotional stress that entails (as happens with doctors and nurses even today), or if she is her own natural-born kind of mental case.
Petty tyrants and simpletons in positions of authority are dangerous. You might not remember a elementary school teacher forbidding bathroom breaks until the scheduled time but I do. She could go whenever she wanted but not the students, when she was called out on her unfairness and logic she simply shrugged her shoulders and said she was teacher and that was that. Perhaps a police officer arresting a pedestrian for walking on the street when there is no sidewalk. If they were to logically argue how you were supposed to travel if not they could simply be obtuse and qualified immunity will protect them. The film points out how institutions are willfully ignorant so that they may accrue more power and justify their existence.
>engage in my contrarian debate
it's just not fun or interesting. it's all been done. some of us have been through every side. it's a dumb waste of time. being truthful is a more worthwhile expenditure of our finite time.
as said >Petty tyrants and simpletons in positions of authority are dangerous.
Anyone who is morally decent, ethically consistent, and respects the personal autonomy of others would agree. I think pretending otherwise for the sake of argument does an injustice to any effort to make the current world less shit.
I don't think this is disputed by anyone. It's just screaming into an empty void about the cruelty of man.
The film, really, is an indulgent polemic against institutions without which most of these people would have been lynched or left to die.
It's a byproduct of the 60s where people identified with the rebelliousness and free spirit of the protagonist, bravely resisting the oppressive conformist forces of society.
It's incredibly biased because, again, it's a polemic.
An even handed presentation would show the institution as necessary for society's functioning while also acknowledging its tendency to overcorrect unique individuals.
But this is too difficult for a typical artist, so we get anarchic slop.
If I take the mental hospital as not literal, then I can sympathize with the free thinker in a generation where it first felt possible to live that as a whole lifestyle - where critical mass was getting that ball rolling in a big way. And the mental hospital and Rached are symbolic of whatever system you're using them as an allegory to criticize.
>An even handed presentation would show the institution as necessary for society's functioning while also acknowledging its tendency to overcorrect unique individuals.
Does it need to be even-handed? Even if it's taken as literally tackling the mental health system, not every covering of a big system can or needs to tackle every aspect.
I dunno if it's got a proper name but I call it the "Strawman Fallacy Fallacy". Alice argues against an extreme instance of something. Bob sees this extreme instance as similar+related to a less extreme instance. He claims Alice is strawmanning the moderate instance, but in fact she's just talking about a different thing that bears some relation to the moderate instance. (e.g. Calling criticism of the Westboro Baptist Church a biased slop take on Christianity).
If we take even-handedness too far in a work of art, it becomes a dry 1:1 allegory, more of a political treatise or essay with the veneer of a movie/show/etc.
If I take it as literally about the mental health system, I think Cuckoo's Nest was fair enough to just look at the injustice/oppression/petty tyranny/w.e. angle. It doesn't seem like the artists left no room for other takes on other aspects of the mental health system. I didn't hear "this is the whole of mental health institutions" from the movie. Not to say, of course, that many viewers wouldn't use it to support their own thesis that says this is the whole of mental health institutions. Just like Fight Club viewers often use it to say employment for income is totally negative and nuking it all is good.
I don't think it needs to be even handed necessarily but I do think we tend to look for complexity in art work for a good reason. If that art work is going to be invoked as a representation of some kind of societal phenomenon, then that complexity is expected, because we innately understand society as complex. Maybe the movie is just a simple tale about this particular mental home, but at least ITT, people are drawing more significant links.
>then I can sympathize with the free thinker
I can too, but see, art always sympathizes with the free thinking rebel. He's the hero who critiques everything. I think a more mature and interesting piece would be something that contextualizes and critiques the free thinker himself, showing the repercussions of his behavior, good and bad.
Given that we're all born following the generation that produced this story, the free thinking free loving generation, it's hard to really look back on those people and what they did and to decisively conclude it was all positive. But that story is never told. >If we take even-handedness too far in a work of art, it becomes a dry 1:1 allegory, more of a political treatise or essay with the veneer of a movie/show/etc.
Sure, so I suppose the goal is not to take it too far and to instead focus on drawing out the essence of things so we can recognize the patterns more clearly in fiction and reality.
>Given that we're all born following the generation that produced this story, the free thinking free loving generation, it's hard to really look back on those people and what they did and to decisively conclude it was all positive. But that story is never told.
I definitely agree here. This is a big untold story of our generation. As we "Imagine Sisyphus Happy", it's time to give a long hard look at "Imagine John Lennon Was Wrong". Is it really okay to leave a dog in a hot car?
>I distinguish four types: >There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. >Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff. >The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. >Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions. >One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
- Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord
Unfortunately you will run into one imbecile in power that will stall or make inconvenient an otherwise routine government process and there is no going around except through him. I had to wait for several hours standing outside at the Social security because they were keeping people separate by one chair space and the lobby had filled up. When I asked if you could get one of the empty chairs the security guard very sternly barked out, "the director already said no chairs and it was not up for discussion."
Anyone that has dealt with misers and dullards in charge know they will deliberately make you suffer since there it would be too time consuming and harmful to reprimand them.
Was this a covid cult thing? Not that that makes it better but you can at least credit him "logic" if not "sound premises" there. But extra hilarious if this shitbird just had some idea about how he wanted "his" social security office to run and that was why lol.
Anyone that has dealt with misers and dullards in charge know they will deliberately make you suffer since there it would be too time consuming and harmful to reprimand them.
They get their niche and slowly expand into it. A sensible person always wonders "How the frick could such a petty vindictive moron create a situation like this?". And it's one little step at a time, as long as no one can or does stop them.
The policies in government and corporations are designed for you to slow down and prevent you from completing your goal. These misunderstandings happen to keep money and benefits away from citizens.
The employee isn't always "doing it on purpose." They're often English-devoid, invading morons, and other kinds of jobsworth simpletons, who are HIRED by someone with that plan in mind. A basically intelligent person trying to frick with you will argue, use logic, and might accidentally let you get somewhere. But the morons and callous NPCs will just stonewall you, and give you no way to advance beyond them. And as some commie ELF environmentalist once said (not Uncle Ted): How else do you argue with that... except with bombs?
I fricking hate when I run into someone who gets to press the red or green button on something I want, and they refuse to behave like a human. >Here's my script; yada yada yada; red button
Okay, here's me following the logic you've outlined; here's how we can still green button. >Sorry, [repeats previous yada's]; red button
Okay, can you explain why that rule is in place, what problems it solves, etc. so that we can satisfy those requirements and still press the green button? Because I think we can find a path there if we put our heads together... >Sir I'm just doing my job; reee; peepee; poopoo
Yeah but you're not doing your duty, and that's to be an actual thinking, feeling, ethical, useful human who then DOES a job in exchange for currency. Precisely the kind of person the term "NPC" arose from interacting with.
The policies in government and corporations are designed for you to slow down and prevent you from completing your goal. These misunderstandings happen to keep money and benefits away from citizens.
>have to deal all day with pants shitting and violently aggressive schizos and morons that none of their actual families wanted to take care of so they dumped them all here >N-N-NO she was mean!
We can sympathize that these nurses, if they come in without a natural empathetic and human-connecting sense required for dealing with these people, were trained by a medical system that had a very poor conception of what mental illness is and how it can be treated to give more people a better shot at living independently.
But we can also fairly-well tell that she was a sadistic c**t unto herself, whether that was conditioned by dealing with down-the-road whackos and the emotional stress that entails (as happens with doctors and nurses even today), or if she is her own natural-born kind of mental case.
>have to deal all day with...
Makes it understandable. Doesn't make it acceptable. She wasn't merely "mean". The level to which her cruelty, incompetence, obstinacy, power-bandying, etc. reached means that, if she was ever suited for the job, she had ceased to be and it was time to resign/fire her.
>the real story is that Kesey was a hippy with mommy issues off his face on shrooms most of the time he was "collecting information" on how shit asylums were
I read something like this before. The film is based off a book and the books author was a hippie who thought not being able to just laze around and live off of other people was tyranny
it all happened in the native's head, he's been high on shrooms in his tipi the whole time. nicholson's character symbolised his ego and after his death he was finally able to break free
>the minimum wage nurse was the real schizo all along
True.
>But uh... between you and me, uh... she might have been 15, but you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don't think it's crazy at all. And I don't think you do, either.
>I hear what you're saying.
>No man alive could resist that. And that's why I got into jail to begin with. And now they're telling me I'm crazy over here 'cause I don't sit there like a goddamn vegetable. It don't make a bit of sense to me. If that's what being crazy is then I'm senseless, out of it, gone down the road, whacko. But, no more, no less. That's it.
>minimum wage
more of a sadistic c**t
She’s a c**t but can you blame her we only witnessed the highest functioning patients too and mcmurphy provokes her over and over until she’s had enough
I do not forgive her for what she did to wormtongue. She took out her rage on him because she knew she could get a result, that he was vulnerable, and because she knew he had seen through the institutionalized lies she willingly enforces.
All she did was say she's gonna tell his mom. So what?
>because she knew he had seen through the institutionalized lies she willingly enforces.
Well put.
I think she was 100% acting out of fear and malice.
We can sympathize that these nurses, if they come in without a natural empathetic and human-connecting sense required for dealing with these people, were trained by a medical system that had a very poor conception of what mental illness is and how it can be treated to give more people a better shot at living independently.
But we can also fairly-well tell that she was a sadistic c**t unto herself, whether that was conditioned by dealing with down-the-road whackos and the emotional stress that entails (as happens with doctors and nurses even today), or if she is her own natural-born kind of mental case.
Evil women are hot.
I like to imagine she frantically rubs her clit while listening to their screams as they're robbed of their personality.
Nurse Ratched did nothing wrong.
I unironically believe this. Anyone who has dealt with insane people knows you need to keep them on a tight leash.
That's not a tight leash. That's a spike collar. And then whipping the dog out of anger and for pleasure, not simply as a corrective measure.
Petty tyrants and simpletons in positions of authority are dangerous. You might not remember a elementary school teacher forbidding bathroom breaks until the scheduled time but I do. She could go whenever she wanted but not the students, when she was called out on her unfairness and logic she simply shrugged her shoulders and said she was teacher and that was that. Perhaps a police officer arresting a pedestrian for walking on the street when there is no sidewalk. If they were to logically argue how you were supposed to travel if not they could simply be obtuse and qualified immunity will protect them. The film points out how institutions are willfully ignorant so that they may accrue more power and justify their existence.
*How you are supposed to travel if there is no sidewalk.
>engage in my contrarian debate
it's just not fun or interesting. it's all been done. some of us have been through every side. it's a dumb waste of time. being truthful is a more worthwhile expenditure of our finite time.
as said
>Petty tyrants and simpletons in positions of authority are dangerous.
Anyone who is morally decent, ethically consistent, and respects the personal autonomy of others would agree. I think pretending otherwise for the sake of argument does an injustice to any effort to make the current world less shit.
I don't think this is disputed by anyone. It's just screaming into an empty void about the cruelty of man.
The film, really, is an indulgent polemic against institutions without which most of these people would have been lynched or left to die.
It's a byproduct of the 60s where people identified with the rebelliousness and free spirit of the protagonist, bravely resisting the oppressive conformist forces of society.
It's incredibly biased because, again, it's a polemic.
An even handed presentation would show the institution as necessary for society's functioning while also acknowledging its tendency to overcorrect unique individuals.
But this is too difficult for a typical artist, so we get anarchic slop.
I think it was what helped Reagan closed down mental hospitals and just turned anyone having mental problems into prisoners.
Good take.
If I take the mental hospital as not literal, then I can sympathize with the free thinker in a generation where it first felt possible to live that as a whole lifestyle - where critical mass was getting that ball rolling in a big way. And the mental hospital and Rached are symbolic of whatever system you're using them as an allegory to criticize.
>An even handed presentation would show the institution as necessary for society's functioning while also acknowledging its tendency to overcorrect unique individuals.
Does it need to be even-handed? Even if it's taken as literally tackling the mental health system, not every covering of a big system can or needs to tackle every aspect.
I dunno if it's got a proper name but I call it the "Strawman Fallacy Fallacy". Alice argues against an extreme instance of something. Bob sees this extreme instance as similar+related to a less extreme instance. He claims Alice is strawmanning the moderate instance, but in fact she's just talking about a different thing that bears some relation to the moderate instance. (e.g. Calling criticism of the Westboro Baptist Church a biased slop take on Christianity).
If we take even-handedness too far in a work of art, it becomes a dry 1:1 allegory, more of a political treatise or essay with the veneer of a movie/show/etc.
If I take it as literally about the mental health system, I think Cuckoo's Nest was fair enough to just look at the injustice/oppression/petty tyranny/w.e. angle. It doesn't seem like the artists left no room for other takes on other aspects of the mental health system. I didn't hear "this is the whole of mental health institutions" from the movie. Not to say, of course, that many viewers wouldn't use it to support their own thesis that says this is the whole of mental health institutions. Just like Fight Club viewers often use it to say employment for income is totally negative and nuking it all is good.
I don't think it needs to be even handed necessarily but I do think we tend to look for complexity in art work for a good reason. If that art work is going to be invoked as a representation of some kind of societal phenomenon, then that complexity is expected, because we innately understand society as complex. Maybe the movie is just a simple tale about this particular mental home, but at least ITT, people are drawing more significant links.
>then I can sympathize with the free thinker
I can too, but see, art always sympathizes with the free thinking rebel. He's the hero who critiques everything. I think a more mature and interesting piece would be something that contextualizes and critiques the free thinker himself, showing the repercussions of his behavior, good and bad.
Given that we're all born following the generation that produced this story, the free thinking free loving generation, it's hard to really look back on those people and what they did and to decisively conclude it was all positive. But that story is never told.
>If we take even-handedness too far in a work of art, it becomes a dry 1:1 allegory, more of a political treatise or essay with the veneer of a movie/show/etc.
Sure, so I suppose the goal is not to take it too far and to instead focus on drawing out the essence of things so we can recognize the patterns more clearly in fiction and reality.
>Given that we're all born following the generation that produced this story, the free thinking free loving generation, it's hard to really look back on those people and what they did and to decisively conclude it was all positive. But that story is never told.
I definitely agree here. This is a big untold story of our generation. As we "Imagine Sisyphus Happy", it's time to give a long hard look at "Imagine John Lennon Was Wrong". Is it really okay to leave a dog in a hot car?
This world is full of narcissists and worse cover narcissists. Be careful out there.
These people only feel better about themselves when they make someone else suffer.
>I distinguish four types:
>There are clever, hardworking, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
>Some are clever and hardworking; their place is the General Staff.
>The next ones are stupid and lazy; they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
>Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the mental clarity and strength of nerve necessary for difficult decisions.
>One must beware of anyone who is both stupid and hardworking; he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always only cause damage.
- Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord
Unfortunately you will run into one imbecile in power that will stall or make inconvenient an otherwise routine government process and there is no going around except through him. I had to wait for several hours standing outside at the Social security because they were keeping people separate by one chair space and the lobby had filled up. When I asked if you could get one of the empty chairs the security guard very sternly barked out, "the director already said no chairs and it was not up for discussion."
Anyone that has dealt with misers and dullards in charge know they will deliberately make you suffer since there it would be too time consuming and harmful to reprimand them.
meant for
Was this a covid cult thing? Not that that makes it better but you can at least credit him "logic" if not "sound premises" there. But extra hilarious if this shitbird just had some idea about how he wanted "his" social security office to run and that was why lol.
They get their niche and slowly expand into it. A sensible person always wonders "How the frick could such a petty vindictive moron create a situation like this?". And it's one little step at a time, as long as no one can or does stop them.
The employee isn't always "doing it on purpose." They're often English-devoid, invading morons, and other kinds of jobsworth simpletons, who are HIRED by someone with that plan in mind. A basically intelligent person trying to frick with you will argue, use logic, and might accidentally let you get somewhere. But the morons and callous NPCs will just stonewall you, and give you no way to advance beyond them. And as some commie ELF environmentalist once said (not Uncle Ted): How else do you argue with that... except with bombs?
I fricking hate when I run into someone who gets to press the red or green button on something I want, and they refuse to behave like a human.
>Here's my script; yada yada yada; red button
Okay, here's me following the logic you've outlined; here's how we can still green button.
>Sorry, [repeats previous yada's]; red button
Okay, can you explain why that rule is in place, what problems it solves, etc. so that we can satisfy those requirements and still press the green button? Because I think we can find a path there if we put our heads together...
>Sir I'm just doing my job; reee; peepee; poopoo
Yeah but you're not doing your duty, and that's to be an actual thinking, feeling, ethical, useful human who then DOES a job in exchange for currency. Precisely the kind of person the term "NPC" arose from interacting with.
The policies in government and corporations are designed for you to slow down and prevent you from completing your goal. These misunderstandings happen to keep money and benefits away from citizens.
>have to deal all day with pants shitting and violently aggressive schizos and morons that none of their actual families wanted to take care of so they dumped them all here
>N-N-NO she was mean!
>frog poster likes jannies
Surprising
This, but, said better by (Me) here:
>have to deal all day with...
Makes it understandable. Doesn't make it acceptable. She wasn't merely "mean". The level to which her cruelty, incompetence, obstinacy, power-bandying, etc. reached means that, if she was ever suited for the job, she had ceased to be and it was time to resign/fire her.
These are some of the most sensible posts I've seen on Cinemaphile
She was a bully and perfectly sane.
That’s why she tried to assert dominance over Nicholson, because he was the most humane one there.
>the real story is that Kesey was a hippy with mommy issues off his face on shrooms most of the time he was "collecting information" on how shit asylums were
Kesey was on CIA provided MKULTRA LSD.
>LSD
We say CIA research chemicals now, don't we?
Tell us the story, anoonie-boo.
I read something like this before. The film is based off a book and the books author was a hippie who thought not being able to just laze around and live off of other people was tyranny
it all happened in the native's head, he's been high on shrooms in his tipi the whole time. nicholson's character symbolised his ego and after his death he was finally able to break free
>the minimum wage nurse was the real schizo all along
True.
>But uh... between you and me, uh... she might have been 15, but you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don't think it's crazy at all. And I don't think you do, either.
>I hear what you're saying.
>No man alive could resist that. And that's why I got into jail to begin with. And now they're telling me I'm crazy over here 'cause I don't sit there like a goddamn vegetable. It don't make a bit of sense to me. If that's what being crazy is then I'm senseless, out of it, gone down the road, whacko. But, no more, no less. That's it.
McMurphy did nothing wrong.
She killed Billy because she wanted his young wiener but couldn't have it
Understandable. No means no, but yes means yes.
a little dab 'll do ya
Many such cases
Ronald reagan is the second worst president we have had.
right after donald trump then