Not even a multiple Academy Award-winning movie can be as personal and intimate as a beautifully written book. Character depth, behavior and physical characterization can hardly be portrayed as extensively and skillfully in movies as in books.
Throughout the whole history of cinematography, many movies have been based on bestsellers and literary masterpieces. Even though many books are often considered almost perfect pieces of art, when they are adapted into movies a great amount of changes take place as producers have to cut the story short in order for it to fit in a two-hour movie with a faster pace. Because of this, it is basically impossible to capture in the movie every mood, characteristic and shade created by the author in the book.
The characterization of all the patients in the movie is fairly different from the book. This is very clear in the cases of Chief Bromden and McMurphy. A big element missing in the movie is Bromden’s background, which represents a huge …show more content…
In the movie, the main character himself is the internal narrator and the whole story is completely biased because every piece of information that comes to us is firstly filtered by his mind and his subjectivisms. In the movie, the narrator is external and this guarantees a neutral and unbiased point of view. Therefore, in the book we perceive a subjective story, full of in-depth internal reasoning and felling, while from the movie we learn what should be the actual full story, without any of the perceptive shades present in the book. In general, the observer might prefer a more straightforward view of the story that can only be achieved through an external omniscient narrator, but in the end, only an internal point of view allows the author to convey a specific