Beyond Nurse Ratched: Four Louise Fletcher Genre Performances For the Ages

Louise Fletcher earned a well-deserved Academy Award in 1975 for her unforgettable performance as Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Outside that much-honored dramatic turn, however, the Oscar-winning actress has also contributed a steady stream of memorable performances in more, well, let's just say, outré productions.

In fact, just knowing that Louise Fletcher is bound to appear can make many lesser films -- like Shadowzone (1990) -- tolerable instead of a chore.

During the 1980s, in particular, Ms. Fletcher starred in a steady stream of weird and outlandish genre fare such as Strange Invaders (1983) and Flowers in the Attic (1987). In these and other film and TV appearances, Fletcher vacillates between two distinct modes of operation.

These modes are:

a.) the crazy parental-or-authority figure (see: Two Moon Junction [1988])

and

b.) the preternaturally cool-as-a-cucumber scientist or doctor (see: The Boy Who Could Fly [1986]).

The four genre performances excerpted below perhaps diagram this actress's singular mystique best.   

1. Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977).

MODE: Preternaturally cool-as-cucumber scientist or doctor.

In John Boorman's legendarily bad sequel to The Exorcist, Fletcher plays Dr. Gene Tuskin, a psychologist who utilizes bio-feedback and hypnosis to cure Regan's (Linda Blair) mental illness/demonic possession. 

In short order, Dr. Tuskin hooks-up Regan to a fanciful "synch" machine so as to relive the events of the first film, and later watches -- nonplussed -- as Regan miraculously cures one of her patients of autism, just by conversing with her.

Through it all, Tuskin rarely breaks a sweat, simply modulating her patient's brain waves.  "Lower...lower...."

Those very words may also reflect Fletcher's technique here, as she keeps dialing down the spiraling-out-of-control melodrama, no matter how big, weird (or, frankly, awful...) the movie gets.

I should probably note here that I once called this Fletcher performance "awful" (in Horror Films of the 1970s [2002]), but after watching the film again recently, I must acknowledge that it is, frankly, a necessary corrective in terms of the rest of the movie.

In fact, this performance reflects Ms. Fletcher's capacity to play cool and collected, knowing and serene, even when all Hell is literally breaking loose around her, and even when other performers might decide to show-boat or go big. 

But Fletcher in The Heretic -- no matter the scene or subject matter -- simply goes "lower..." 

One can see approach reach full flower during the sequence (pictured above), in which Tuskin's body rather improbably becomes a battlefield between the myriad forces of good and evil.

2. Brainstorm (1983)

MODE: Preternaturally cool-as-cucumber scientist or doctor.

In this Douglas Trumball film's most powerful and unforgettable moment, a scientist named Lillian (Fletcher) realizes she is suffering a fatal heart attack, and rather than seek medical help, decides to record the moment for posterity on the new "brain impulse" machine she has devised along with Christopher Walken's character, Michael.

What follows is a tour-de-force Fletcher performance as Lillian puts survival aside, powers through the fear, and records -- for the ages -- the "death" experience. 

I admire this performance in terms of its sense of focus and commitment. Lillian is dying, but before she can let go of life, she has to navigate the lab, plus a lot of very user-unfriendly 1980s computer devices.

Living is easy.  Dying with purpose is hard.

3. Invaders from Mars (1986)

MODE:  The crazy parental-or-authority figure.

The Tobe Hooper remake of the 1953 original is a knowing and cheeky nightmare/fantasy shot from the perspective of a child, David Gardner (Hunter Carson). 

In keeping with that youthful view-point, the boy's teacher, Mrs. McKeltch (Fletcher) is depicted as a fearsome and distant figure of school-marm-ish authority. 

Fletcher's best moment sees McKeltch swallowing a frog -- and then delicately dabbing at her mouth with a napkin.

The moment reminds us that from a kid's perspective, adult behavior (not to mention taste...) is often inexplicable.

That the messy eating of a frog is punctuated by the cleaning of the lips/mouth, is an especially nice Fletcher touch, if you ask me.

4. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993)

MODE:  The crazy parental-or-authority figure.

Fletcher played the recurring role of Vedek (then Kai) Winn on Deep Space Nine, a religious extremist bent on consolidating power on the planet Bajor, and then sending the planet back to a kind of fundamentalist dark ages.  

In her first appearance, "In the Hands of the Prophets," Fletcher's Winn objects to the school on DS9 teaching, well, science.

In this appearance, and throughout the series, Fletcher makes Winn an infuriating (but again, calm-voiced) figure of condescending intolerance, one who is wrapped up in flourishes of self-righteous, holier-than-thou morality.  

Winn often refers to those she disagrees with as "my child," thus claiming the upper hand in every debate and dismissing her opponents as somehow less mature at the same time.

Winn is absolutely infuriating, and Fletcher is perfect in the part. In a franchise famous for featuring villainous races like the Klingons, Cardassians and Borg, Fletcher's turn as the face of backwards-thinking fundamentalist loon remains noteworthy and impressive.

Cult-Movie Review: Brainstorm (1983)

Although deemed “provocative” and at least somewhat “redeemed by its special effects” (according to a review by Hal Goodman in Psychology Today), Douglas Trumball’s Brainstorm is nonetheless one of those genre films that never quite gets its due. 

In part, this lack of widespread appreciation may result from the fact that the 1983 movie seems to defy easy categorization.

Is Brainstorm a science fiction film? A horror movie? Or is it fantasy? 

Like Altered States (1980), and Dreamscape (1984), Brainstorm seems to straddle all those genres. There’s even a “head film” aspect to its trippy visions of the after-life, and the movie’s final moments of cosmic transcendence.

Secondly, Brainstorm is the final film of beloved actress Natalie Wood, who died in unfortunate circumstances before the movie was completed. And the film’s very subject matter -- regarding the death experience – seems distinctly uncomfortable in light of the real life tragedy.

Watching the film today, it’s difficult not to think about what happened to Wood.

And yet despite such concerns, Brainstorm is indeed a provocative and meticulously-crafted work of art. With intelligence and dedication, the Trumball film imagines what might happen once scientists develop a machine that blows “communication as we know it right out of the water.”

In the year1983, that colorful-sounding achievement probably felt rather remote and woefully futuristic. 

Yet in 2014, we reckon with -- on nearly a daily basis, too -- the myriad ways that new communication technologies change how human beings relate to one another. 

In the span since Trumball made his film, we have seen the rise of cell-phones, social media, the Internet, and even the first steps towards virtual reality.

This sense of a rapidly-shifting communications landscape wasn’t always clear to audiences in the context of Brainstorm’s original release in the early eighties. However, time seems to have at last caught up with the forward-thinking film. Viewed now, it is plain that Brainstorm gazes meaningfully at the ways that a revolutionary communications device (one that records and transmits brain impulses…) impacts every aspect of human relationships, and even our belief systems. 

Commendably, the film is even-handed and judicious in its musings. Unlike WarGames, Blue Thunder Superman III, Never Say Never Again or Nightmares, which all worried about a future of computerization and increasingly inhuman technology, Brainstorm suggests and visualizes the idea that new technology can actually repair relationships, or bring peace of mind about our ultimate dread: death itself. The yang to that yin is that such technology can also be used to hurt people, albeit sometimes inadvertently.

Seen in light of everything that has come down in the pike in the world of “communication” since the Trumball film premiered, we might today regard Brainstorm not just as provocative, but actually revelatory.

“We blew it, didn’t we?”

Scientists Lillian Reynolds (Louise Fletcher) and Michael Brace (Christopher Walken) have developed a revolutionary new technology. They have created a special helmet-like device that can read and record the impulses of one human brain, and then make those impulses available (on a copper-like tape…) for other humans to view. 

But it’s not strictly a matter of viewing the world through another person’s eyes. While experiencing a pre-recorded tape, a percipient also feels everything that happened during the recording. They can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel those experiences.

Lillian and Michael’s boss, Terson (Cliff Robertson) is determined to get this new device on the market as quickly as possible, but also invites the U.S. Government to participate in the research. This act spurs a flat-out revolt on Lillian’s part.  She is certain the device will be applied to purposes of spying and war. A new weapon is the last thing she wants or desires.

Meanwhile, Michael learns that the machine is helpful in another way. He and his wife, PR expert Karen (Wood) have been on the verge of separation and divorce. But the new machine allows them each to “see” one another in a new light.  The invention saves -- and renews -- their romantic, intimate relationship.

When Lillian suffers a devastating heart attack in the laboratory, she puts on the helmet and records the death experience itself.

Afterwards, Michael becomes desperate to screen her last tape, but again, the U.S. military stands in the way.

“There’s more to it than just practical application and packaging.”

In Brainstorm, Douglas Trumball utilizes the brain impulse device as a vehicle for exploring human relationships, and the way that advancing technology in the field of communication can affect those relationships.  If the film seems somewhat episodic (and occasionally incoherent…) it is because, primarily, the screenplay charts the device’s impact on several different aspects of life, and upon several different characters or groups.

For example, the U.S. government sees the device as something that can be used in war, to torture prisoners.

At one point in the film, Michael learns that the military has recorded a mental patient’s experience of a “psychotic break,” and that this tape can drive a man or woman to the brink of madness. Michael’s own son accidentally views the tape, and goes insane.

For a moment, just imagine being able to impose a psychotic break on a political enemy, or rival. Such an assault would appear to outsiders as a natural problem, not as an external attack.  Today, our country has debated about what constitutes “torture,” and Brainstorm seems to understand the terrible danger of a device that can destroy the mind, or cause terrible physical suffering, but leave no physical marks.

But in terms of communication specifically, our government has also entered into clandestine relationships with commercial giants like Verizon and Google so that it can access their data and learn more about their customer base…us.  This very brand of government-business alliance is forecast here, as the military is given total access to the privately-constructed communications device and Michael’s laboratory. The military’s intent is to weaponize the brain impulse device, and possibly even use it against the public. The point, however, is that in a world of governments launching cyber-attacks on other governments, this idea hardly seems far-fetched anymore.

One of the other scientists on Michael’s and Lillian’s team sees the device in another way. He watches a tape of a fellow scientist engaging in sexual intercourse, but then cuts the tape so it is a repeating loop of the moment of orgasm.

Like a drug addict, this scientist eventually loses all interest in life, his job, and his family, and simply re-plays the tape, experiencing moment of ecstasy after moment of ecstasy. Nothing else matters.

This subplot is no doubt Brainstorm’s spikiest and most outré application of technology, but we know today that it is also not terribly far-fetched. A generation has grown up watching readily-available Internet porn.  In other words, Brainstorm forecasts the ease and speed at which a communications device, like the Internet, can deliver sexual imagery. Today, we often read of people being addicted to “Internet porn,” or Internet porn ruining a marriage. In Brainstorm, an intervention is necessary when a new brand of porn is invented, and it becomes irresistible to the “user.”

The aspect of Brainstorm that I admire most, perhaps, is its consideration of a new communications technology as a tool for psychological therapy; for generating empathy. At one juncture, Michael experiences life through his wife’s eyes, and is suddenly granted a view of himself that no one has ever been afforded in real life. 

Suddenly, he understands what it is like to live with himself; with a man who is obsessed with his work, emotionally distant, and sometimes even emotionally absent. The key to empathy is being able to put yourself in the mind-set of another person, and the machine permits that. It is the ultimate in role-playing. You don’t have to imagine your partner’s feelings anymore, you can actually experience them. Brainstorm thus suggests that this machine could change the nature of our most basic relationships; that it could be a useful and productive tool for therapy.

There are long sections of Brainstorm that concern Michael and Karen’s relationship, but the strife is resolved when they can really understand each other’s point of view for the first time.  I don’t know about you, but my wife says she often wonders what I’m thinking (!).  Perhaps all couple relationships could be improved if we could feel what our spouse or significant other feels.

In its denouement, Brainstorm goes big…and trippy.

Lillian’s death tape is played, and Trumball escorts viewers to the very edge of creation, and beyond.  The death tape reveals Lillian having an OBE (out of body experience), looking down at herself from outside her own eyes. Then the imagery resolves to a series of tear drop-like bubbles. Each one seems to represent an isolated but accessible moment from Lillian’s life.

Once this imagery is left behind, the film cuts to a brief view of humans trapped -- and writhing -- in fleshy-outgrowths like organic prison cells. This composition symbolizes not merely the possibility of Hell, but the fear that comes with being separated from the material or physical universe.  We go through our lives trapped in our bodies, and physically separated from one another, the imagery suggests.

Finally, we follow Lillian’s disembodied soul on a journey through galactic space. We see her soul join a million butterfly-like -- or angel-like -- organisms (more souls) as they move gently and slowly into a warm and welcoming light.  This is what comes at the end of life, finally: a new interconnectedness, a new togetherness not fully possible in our mortal, separate, individual form.

What I find most fascinating about this view of the afterlife, is that it is, simply, an augmentation of what Lillian and Michael’s machine already accomplishes. 

Their “revolutionary” form of communication allows a different brand of togetherness. It permits empathy, as opposed to physical (or energetic, I guess…) connection. But that empathy, that understanding, is a real step closer to the cosmic union portrayed in the film’s final phantasm. In this case, a communications technology allows us to “reach out and touch someone” in a way previously unimaginable

In the end, Brainstorm suggests that Heaven is not a place. Instead, it is the accumulated light of our all our souls together, shining as one. And the communications breakthrough wrought by the film’s scientists not only reveals this truth, but in some senses mimics aspects of that togetherness. 

As I noted above, Brainstorm moves in episodic fits and starts. Yet, at the same time, it is never anything less than wildly cinematic.  There’s an incredible P.O.V. journey on a rollercoaster (and through a water slide…), for instance, and other visual wonders here. 

Accordingly, one can’t help but wonder if Trumball is suggesting that the communal experience of movie-watching (another form of communications technology) is the real antecedent to the machine depicted in the film. We see through the eyes of several characters in the film, including Lillian as she faces her own death.  Given this first-person or POV perspective, the idea of feeling their emotions hardly seems out of the realm of possibility.

Brainstorm is, perhaps, a good deal better than its reputation suggests. Louise Fletcher delivers a brilliant performance, particularly during her heart attack scene, and the film ends on a cosmic high-note, explicitly comparing (with its North Carolina locations…) the Wright Bros. achievement of flight with Lillian and Michael’s discovery of what exists beyond the boundary of death. The only place the 1983 film creaks is during an extended action sequence at a manufacturing plant, where an assembly line goes comically -- and interminably -- haywire.

Other than that low point, Brainstorm lives up to its device’s PR/advertising pitch. The Trumball movie plays (commendably) like “research for a better tomorrow.”