How we should read this movie?
Is it really important to know why a famous psychiatrist could have helped the journalist to get into the asylum? Is it really important to have a realistic, tied up scenario in this movie?
I don't think so, and what really comes out of it is a wild political message that ultimately depicts the madness of the outside, normal society, and how it deals with everything that is different. To me, the director's intent is to tell us how sick our society is (at least, "was", at his time) and, for that, he chose the metaphor of madness, and very specific characters to tell us the message. The main characters are the mad guys, and the journalist and the crime are only excuses to lead us into this outside world of rejected people. The scenario structure seems to be rather simple and rounded as any political speech, so after we enter the asylum, we are presented to the mad characters (the war veteran, the black guy, the physicist), one by one. The only exception to this straightforward scenario line is the journalist girlfriend, but her appearance shouldn't have a different direction (in the critical, political sense), and she gives us a really funny, sexy, and ridiculous scene where the hollywoodean love is ridiculized (she is performing her daily striptease, at the same time we know she's suffering from love, note how the scene is shown in a cold, distant and downward camera).
Definitely, it is a political-pulp-fiction. As such, a good movie.
Just don't try to see it as a standard Hollywood movie.
