I read about two pages of it today, (not my book, a friend's) and I have to say its quite interesting. And once you figure out the majority of the language, quite enjoyable.
Been a long time but if I remember correctly the point of the movie was "You can overcome conditioning and be a violent fether" but the point of the book was you can mature past the point where being a violent fether is a good thing and instead be a contributing member of society.
The movie ended a chapter or two before the book does I think.
But I have not read the book nor seen the movie since the early 90s...
The movie's point was a lot different from that. Alex is not able to overcome his conditioning and gets the gak beaten out of him because of it. It's more about the idea of being good or bad with and without the existence of free will, and a harsh criticism to apathetic role-models.
CptJake wrote:Been a long time but if I remember correctly the point of the movie was "You can overcome conditioning and be a violent fether" but the point of the book was you can mature past the point where being a violent fether is a good thing and instead be a contributing member of society.
The movie ended a chapter or two before the book does I think.
But I have not read the book nor seen the movie since the early 90s...
The movie ended at the same point as the American version of the book.
When Burgess brought the book to an American publisher, they argued that the final chapter
Spoiler:
where Alex suddenly decides that being violent is bad and has a sudden, unexpected change of character
was simply too unrealistic for an American audience. So, until the 1986 printing of the book, the American version didn't have the final chapter.
Well, my version bought here in the USA did have the final chapter (admittedly in the early 90s), and I suspect Kubrick had access to the final chapter too.
One of my favorite books, although the movie portrayed the scenes even better than I had imagined. Disturbing, to a point. The book is great though. Explains a lot that the movie didn't at all, and offers a nice introspective.
I also read the last chapter part, although for the life of me, I can't remember it, because I just blazed through it
CptJake wrote:Well, my version bought here in the USA did have the final chapter (admittedly in the early 90s), and I suspect Kubrick had access to the final chapter too.
Here's an interview with Kubrick about the last chapter:
Interviewer: The end of A Clockwork Orange is different from the one in the Burgess book.
Kubrick: There are two different versions of the novel. One has an extra chapter. I had not read this version until I had virtually finished the screenplay. This extra chapter depicts the rehabilitation of Alex. But it is, as far as I am concerned, unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the publisher had somehow prevailed upon Burgess to tack on the extra chapter against his better judgment, so the book would end on a more positive note. I certainly never gave any serious consideration to using it.
So, he was aware of it, but only after he had almost completed the screenplay. And, he wasn't a fan of it.
My copy was complete with the script and songs for Clockwork Orange: The musical (Highlight: The tolchocking song).
Read it about 20 years ago for the first time. Saw the movie about 3 years earlier. Watched it again on dvd about 6-7 years ago. The commentary made certain elements clearer (for the movie).
The movie does handle certain things differently. The threesome Alex has with the schoolgirls, for example. They are ALL underage (something not apparent in the movie). Alex is 13.
CptJake wrote:Well, my version bought here in the USA did have the final chapter (admittedly in the early 90s), and I suspect Kubrick had access to the final chapter too.
Here's an interview with Kubrick about the last chapter:
Interviewer: The end of A Clockwork Orange is different from the one in the Burgess book.
Kubrick: There are two different versions of the novel. One has an extra chapter. I had not read this version until I had virtually finished the screenplay. This extra chapter depicts the rehabilitation of Alex. But it is, as far as I am concerned, unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the publisher had somehow prevailed upon Burgess to tack on the extra chapter against his better judgment, so the book would end on a more positive note. I certainly never gave any serious consideration to using it.
So, he was aware of it, but only after he had almost completed the screenplay. And, he wasn't a fan of it.
Of course he wasn't a fan of it. It was an ending with a positive lesson where the main character realizes senseless violence is wrong.
I liked much about the book, but felt the overall message was contrived. I think it depends on whether Alex's progress from violent brute to fully realised human being mirrored the reader's.
I love the movie. The music and set design is about as good as it's ever been, and the conclusion, with Alex remaining a violent brute, helped the film focus on the social failings surrounding it.
I think that the book is definitely in my top 5 or 10 books that I have ever read (for point of reference, Fight Club is the number 1 book I have read). I had read somewhere, a small excerpt or interview or some such, on Burgess' "formula" for creating his iconic language of Clockwork Orange, and I think that, to basically create a whole new language takes some serious smarts to do. I haven't read much of his other stuff, but Clockwork definitely stands out there.
I think that the movie, by and large captured much of the essence of the book, and the soundtrack was real horrorshow. Using the Funeral March of Queen Mary as its theme was sheer genius.
One of the best book I've ever read too!
The movie is good (thanks to the aesthethic and the music), but the book is so much better.
It's amazing to see how past the first 30 pages you start to read it naturaly. I've read it about 17 years ago and the slang is still anchored in my memory, am I the only one here?
Hyenajoe wrote:One of the best book I've ever read too!
The movie is good (thanks to the aesthethic and the music), but the book is so much better.
It's amazing to see how past the first 30 pages you start to read it naturaly. I've read it about 17 years ago and the slang is still anchored in my memory, am I the only one here?
Nope. I grew up with Russian neighbours.
I was hearing words that sounded like nadsat for many years. A lot of Nadsat words are based off Russian words, afterall.
Honest question for those who say this was the best movie ever:
Why?
Plenty of movies with violence and rape out there, from a technical perspective this wasn't great even by early 70's standards. What makes this movie the best movie ever?
Joey wrote:It is an aboration of the English language and should not be read by anyone.
I hate it.
you do realize that this aberration of English, as you call it, was done on purpose, right? He basically created his own dialect of slang speak for the book (and by proxy, the movie).
As to you hating it, I can't comment, because to each his own.
Joey wrote:It is an aboration of the English language and should not be read by anyone.
I hate it.
you do realize that this aberration of English, as you call it, was done on purpose, right? He basically created his own dialect of slang speak for the book (and by proxy, the movie).
As to you hating it, I can't comment, because to each his own.
I know.
But if people are going to go around making up language as they go along we may as well go back to flinging gak at each other in trees.
He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Ahtman wrote:He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Right but his language doesn't sound like that. There is an internal structure to slang, the sounds resonate with each other in a subtle but perceptable way. The language that he uses seems like he's just pulled a random sound out of his head. I seem to recall the vowels, in particular, were very strange.
Ahtman wrote:He didn't make up a language as much as the slang used by youth. If someone from even 50 years ago heard you talking with your friends they would think you sounded just as terrible. Probably wouldn't even have to go that far.
Right but his language doesn't sound like that. There is an internal structure to slang, the sounds resonate with each other in a subtle but perceptable way. The language that he uses seems like he's just pulled a random sound out of his head. I seem to recall the vowels, in particular, were very strange.
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
While I didn't say that (mis-attributed quote) I agree. If it sounded to close to a specific time period it would be dated, as it is, it doesn't fit into any specific place and time. Whether read 30 years ago or yesterday it always seems just slightly alien and out of our time.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
No, it's post-modernism at its most brutal and uncompromising. There is no relation between that language and our own. It doesn't skirt around the edges of Christendom as The Lord of the Rings does, it's him just MAKING UP WORDS.
I can do that, look. My blords and I hucked down the fonnotane. See; abstract, easy, pointless, cruel.
Ahtman wrote:
They didn't think they sounded strange, much as you probably don't think you do either, but dollars to donuts to someone outside your time and in-group, you sound like you learned English by being hit in the head with a cricket stick repeatedly. In thirty years someone your age now will think we all sounded like idiots and that our language didn't resonate in a subtle and perceptible way.
I think that what makes C.O. work so well is that the "slang" that he uses in the book is so far removed from any known slang used in the English language that it "resonates" with us regardless of time period it is being read.
No, it's post-modernism at its most brutal and uncompromising. There is no relation between that language and our own. It doesn't skirt around the edges of Christendom as The Lord of the Rings does, it's him just MAKING UP WORDS.
I can do that, look. My blords and I hucked down the fonnotane. See; abstract, easy, pointless, cruel.
You can just keep all of that blord-hucking to yourself. This is a family forum.
The novel was written in 1962 when the possibility of a red Europe was a very real threat. It wasn't beyond the realms of imagination to suggest that a 'future' England could be populated by people speaking a Ruso-English pidgin.
Amaya wrote:I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though.
Someone who doesn't "get it."
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
I, too, experience the first 30% of things and are immediately able to understand their full depth. I talk to you more about your experiences, but it would be unnecessary at this point.
Amaya wrote:I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though.
Someone who doesn't "get it."
I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
Considering that you don't even know what the movie's about, I'd say that my assumption is more than fair.
The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Amaya wrote:The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day.
Is it not a bit arrogant to suggest someone lacks morals? Or is that just 'rude'?
Amaya wrote:The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because that have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day.
You would do well to avoid the following, as well:
The Watchmen
The Fountainhead
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
The Sleeping Dragon
Straw Dogs
The General's Daughter
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
8mm
Boogy Nights
The Cell
The Crow
Dead man Walking
Devils Advocate
Hollow Man
Cryptonomicon
...Those are about all I can think of off the top of my head. Alternatively, perhaps you could not be so close-minded as to think that anyone who views or (God-forbid!) ENJOYS media that happens to contain rape actually endorses the act of rape. It's there to prove a point. It's a pretty vile thing to do; possibly one of the most vile things one could do. It exists in media BECAUSE people have moral compasses, not in spite of it. It is supposed to horrify. It's like the 'wet nurse' sclupt that people hate so much. I would imagine every fiber of your morally self-righteous self simply quakes with rage at the sight of that thing. It is disturbing and you despise it. That's the point.
You weren't accused of not getting it because you didn't like it. You were accused of not getting it because you turned away the moment you got slightly uncomfortable.
In fairness, in many of the movies you named, the rape is done by a bad guy, or at least the perp suffers consequences.
In Clockwork Orange, the (anti)hero is the rapist and it is made to seem cool, and at least in the movie the (anti)hero "wins" because he overcomes conditioning meant to stop future rapes and acts of senseless violence.
Please continue to spew such idiocy. I find it very amusing that you twist my words and continue under the presumption that I fail to understand the book's message.
@Fafnir, I'm sure you though that was cute. Pitiful response.
@ArbeitsSchu. Neither, If people fail to comprehend that I don't like it simply because I don't enjoy watching a film about people abusing people senselessly by a wildly overrated director then they surely lack morality. Not because they like the film, I really don't care, but because they insult anyone who disagrees with them and suggests that violence in the film is tasteless. Once again, I must be an idiot simply because I disagree with you.
@Daedalus, allow me to quote myself for you.
"I watched about 30 minutes of it a few years ago.
One of the few movies I didn't finish. Tasteless.
I'm sure the book is actually good though."
Is this opinion judgmental of people who like the film? No. If you are insulted by the fact I dislike something that you enjoy you have serious problems.
Fafnir proceeded to insult me by saying I did not get it.
I replied:
"I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning."
Again, where have I made a judgment of those who enjoy the movie? Where I have a made a judgment of the movie other than me considering it to be tasteless?
Where I have said it endorses violence?
But, no, you and Fafnir continue to insult me.
"I, too, experience the first 30% of things and are immediately able to understand their full depth. I talk to you more about your experiences, but it would be unnecessary at this point."
"Considering that you don't even know what the movie's about, I'd say that my assumption is more than fair."
Arrogant. Extremely arrogant. Do you really think that is difficult to understand that the film is about free will?
So I replied again.
"The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding.
You probably don't even understand what the book is about.
Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
Of course, one can not have a different opinion than you without being an idiot.
Simply having a message does not justify tasteless violence and sexual depravity, but I doubt you have the moral compass to understand that.
I despise misogyny in all forms and stopped the film with the infamous "Singing in the Rain" scene and implied rape.
Whether or not you appreciate the film is completely irrelevant to me. The fact that you are arrogant to the point of dismissing and insulting anyone who objects to the film simply because they have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings is simply astounding.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy. Insulting people over a difference of opinion does little more than show your own prejudice and ignorance.
Have a good day. "
I did not insult anyone until they did so to me. At that point if you are going to be hostile towards me I will return the favor.
Daedalus
"...Those are about all I can think of off the top of my head. Alternatively, perhaps you could not be so close-minded as to think that anyone who views or (God-forbid!) ENJOYS media that happens to contain rape actually endorses the act of rape. It's there to prove a point. It's a pretty vile thing to do; possibly one of the most vile things one could do. It exists in media BECAUSE people have moral compasses, not in spite of it. It is supposed to horrify. It's like the 'wet nurse' sclupt that people hate so much. I would imagine every fiber of your morally self-righteous self simply quakes with rage at the sight of that thing. It is disturbing and you despise it. That's the point.
You weren't accused of not getting it because you didn't like it. You were accused of not getting it because you turned away the moment you got slightly uncomfortable. "
1) In my initial comments did I say anything negative about those who enjoyed the film? In fact, did I not state that I have nothing against people who enjoyed and stated I really don't care if you like it or not? So now you're putting words in my mouth attempting to twist my dislike of the film into a seething hatred for those who enjoy it.
Here I'll bold it so you can understand.
I DO NOT LIKE A CLOCKWORK ORANGE AND I DO NOT CARE IF YOU LIKE IT
2) You continue to be arrogant and presume I didn't research the film and read about the message before watching it. I decided hey, I don't want to watch this crap because I don't care for it and already know what it is about. So at that point, why would I continue watching it?
I don't think it's a good film. The Watchmen is as graphic, but is considerably better.
Surely if you didn't watch the whole film you can't properly contextualize the violence in it?
Also, do you not find the gratuitous execution of a pregnant woman AND the brutal rape scene of Watchmen to be more graphic and a bit excessive? The violence in Orange is substantially weaker and less graphic.
Might help. Especially as "tasteless" is a bit of a subjective term. Also, I'm not sure that one can really do 'tasteful' rape. And its not as if Watchmen managed to handle it "tastefully" either. If anything it was more brutal, and to a certain degree rather more gratuitous.
I'm just trying to understand what I perceive as a bit of a contradiction as it stands. On the one hand we have "have no desire to watch the abuse of human beings", and on the other hand we have "Watchmen is as graphic, but is considerably better." Are we to infer that Watchmen violence is in better taste?
Automatically Appended Next Post: "people abusing people senselessly by a wildly overrated director " sticks out a bit too
Outside of Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick is overrated in my opinion and I could accept arguments that those two films are overrated as well especially in the case of Full Metal Jacket because I have a fascination with war films and am biased in favor of it.
A Clockwork Orange is about morality, free will, totalitarianism, and in my opinion, how a society should deal with criminals. It does not endorse violence, torture, or brainwashing. It simply poses those questions.
I don't see any redeeming qualities in Alex, whereas every character in Watchmen has redeeming qualities or at least reason for being deranged.
Spoiler:
Yes, the Comedian is violent murdering sonofabitch. He also loves his daughter, is disturbed by Dr. Manhattan's loss of humanity, and is human enough to be disturbed by Veidt's ultimate plan. He's not a complete sociopath, he simply doesn't care because in his view, everything is a joke. Also, he is the cause of the majority of disturbing violence against innocents in the story, but the story opens with him getting beaten to a pulp and tossed out a window. So, yes what he did was vile, but he was punished for it. Alex suffers brainwashing, but it doesn't stick, and he ends up his old self again in a position of power. So, despite him being a sociopath he is rewarded by the end of the film, whereas the Comedian is dead at the start of his.
Let's look at Comedian's violent acts.
1) Attempted rape of the Silk Spectre. It is unsuccessful and he gets the crap beat out of him. Later on he as an affair with the Silk Spectre, giving her a child that she loves dearly. To say it's a complex situation is an understatement.
2) Murder of the pregnant woman. Yeah, it's terrible and unjustified. It is horrible and deeply disturbing? For one it was done after being provoked and slashed across the face and it happens in seconds instead of being drawn out. Both this and the "Singing in the Rain" scene are evil, but the latter scene is much more uncomfortable to watch.
Rorscach does violent things, but he does not commit acts of violence against innocents.
1) He brutally assaults violent older bullies. Does not disturb me. In this case he was victim defending himself.
2) He killed a murder/rapist that fed a young girl do his dogs. Completely justified.
3) He kills a multiple rapist and dumps the body at a police station. I don't have a problem with people killing rapists.
4) He beats the crap out of some criminals in prison. Self defense.
5) Kills Big Figure and his two goons. Self defense.
Manhattan turns people into goop. Big deal.
By far the most disturbing act in the Watchmen is Veidt wiping out millions in order to preserve peace and considering the alternative at least Veidt's act can be comprehended logically if not morally.
You can't really compare the violence between the two movies.
So you make the distinction between an act that is justified in the morality of the story: Rorscach killing a murder/rapist is justified because bad people deserve killing...and Alex's assault on the woman, which is unjustifiable morally (neither of the victims 'deserve' their fate.) but is necessary to the greater morality of the film as a whole?To pose a question about it, some form of extreme act of violence is necessary. So would you agree that the level of ultra-violence in Orange (tame as it is by modern standards) is a necessary part of the film as a whole? Clockwork Orange without the violence is just a Simpsons episode, after all.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So you make the distinction between an act that is justified in the morality of the story: Rorscach killing a murder/rapist is justified because bad people deserve killing...and Alex's assault on the woman, which is unjustifiable morally (neither of the victims 'deserve' their fate.) but is necessary to the greater morality of the film as a whole?To pose a question about it, some form of extreme act of violence is necessary. So would you agree that the level of ultra-violence in Orange (tame as it is by modern standards) is a necessary part of the film as a whole? Clockwork Orange without the violence is just a Simpsons episode, after all.
I don't think that is necessarily true, but it would be difficult to emphasize the message without the violence.
I don't know if killing a murderer or rapist is justified, but it is certainly more justifiable than killing or raping an innocent.
It's not the level of violence or how graphic it is that bothers me, it's the careless way that it is carried out almost as if it a joke, yet serious at the same time. Someone enraged attacking another person is understandable. Someone laughing and joking while they beat another human is much more disturbing in my eyes.
CptJake wrote:In fairness, in many of the movies you named, the rape is done by a bad guy, or at least the perp suffers consequences.
In Clockwork Orange, the (anti)hero is the rapist and it is made to seem cool, and at least in the movie the (anti)hero "wins" because he overcomes conditioning meant to stop future rapes and acts of senseless violence.
I am not so certain. At no point in the movie do I sympathize really with Alex. I don't look at him like he's an anti-hero. It's just that the bad guy is the main character. The movie is almost more interesting for me though from the point of view of a social commentary on behaviorally modifying science. Similarly, scientists in present times are working on some sort of injection that will make a recipient incapable of deriving pleasure from heroin. Is that something we should administer to people who commit crimes while under the influence of heroin? Also, I'm unsure of who was the good guy or bad guy in Fear and Loathing. I'm quick to say the chick, but that's simply because she liked Barbara Streisand. To be fair, they were discussing the idea of having cops pay to rape her. Where that rates on levels of morality is frankly beyond me and my apparently shaky moral compass.
Also, the WW2 era Nipponese were the ones raping people in Cryptonomicon. Evaluating good guys, bad guys, and morals thereof would require levels of discussion on philosophy that are unfit for a wargaming forum.
Actually, now that I think about it, the guy in Fountainhead is the good guy, and he rapes the chick in it when he's working as a hired hand at her husband's house. Granted, that's Ayn Rand for you, but still.
Amaya wrote:
"I, too, experience the first 30% of things and are immediately able to understand their full depth. I talk to you more about your experiences, but it would be unnecessary at this point."
"Considering that you don't even know what the movie's about, I'd say that my assumption is more than fair."
Arrogant. Extremely arrogant. Do you really think that is difficult to understand that the film is about free will?
I'm quite arrogant. I would have been the first one to admit it, given the opportunity. Generally, I find it justified. What can I say? I'm human and have plenty of vices. It set me off though that you had only watched 30 minutes of it by your own admission and had already judged it. I can not sincerely thing of a single thing I could only experience part of and then derive a complete judgement of. Almost everything I have ever attempted to do so with I have been proven too hasty in my judgement of. That is why I call it close-minded.
Daedalus
"...Those are about all I can think of off the top of my head. Alternatively, perhaps you could not be so close-minded as to think that anyone who views or (God-forbid!) ENJOYS media that happens to contain rape actually endorses the act of rape. It's there to prove a point. It's a pretty vile thing to do; possibly one of the most vile things one could do. It exists in media BECAUSE people have moral compasses, not in spite of it. It is supposed to horrify. It's like the 'wet nurse' sclupt that people hate so much. I would imagine every fiber of your morally self-righteous self simply quakes with rage at the sight of that thing. It is disturbing and you despise it. That's the point.
You weren't accused of not getting it because you didn't like it. You were accused of not getting it because you turned away the moment you got slightly uncomfortable. "
1) In my initial comments did I say anything negative about those who enjoyed the film? In fact, did I not state that I have nothing against people who enjoyed and stated I really don't care if you like it or not? So now you're putting words in my mouth attempting to twist my dislike of the film into a seething hatred for those who enjoy it.
Here I'll bold it so you can understand.
I DO NOT LIKE A CLOCKWORK ORANGE AND I DO NOT CARE IF YOU LIKE IT
2) You continue to be arrogant and presume I didn't research the film and read about the message before watching it. I decided hey, I don't want to watch this crap because I don't care for it and already know what it is about. So at that point, why would I continue watching it?
While it is true that your initial comments did not maintain negative statements about people who enjoyed the film, your later assertion that I (I assume I was included, for all intents and purposes) lacked a moral compass was what I, at least, could consider a personal attack. I find that it's hard to express the utmost good in people without being able to handily contrast it with the utmost depraved and terrible, but maybe I'm a hack of a storyteller. I'll have to experiment on my Ravenloft group on Monday.
I don't think it's a good film. The Watchmen is as graphic, but is considerably better.
This I can not dispute. I wish that they would have gone with the original monster idea from the graphic novel, for completeness sake, but the Doc Manhattan thing made more sense, overall, as a storyline.
Wow, nested quotes are hard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be fair, you didn't say you did any research into the movie OR the book. You simply said you stopped watching the movie after 30 minutes, found it tasteless, and then assumed the book to be better. It is impossible to determine you did anything with regard to the story, in either format, at any point, thereafter.
ArbeitsSchu wrote:So you make the distinction between an act that is justified in the morality of the story: Rorscach killing a murder/rapist is justified because bad people deserve killing...and Alex's assault on the woman, which is unjustifiable morally (neither of the victims 'deserve' their fate.) but is necessary to the greater morality of the film as a whole?To pose a question about it, some form of extreme act of violence is necessary. So would you agree that the level of ultra-violence in Orange (tame as it is by modern standards) is a necessary part of the film as a whole? Clockwork Orange without the violence is just a Simpsons episode, after all.
I don't think that is necessarily true, but it would be difficult to emphasize the message without the violence.
I don't know if killing a murderer or rapist is justified, but it is certainly more justifiable than killing or raping an innocent.
It's not the level of violence or how graphic it is that bothers me, it's the careless way that it is carried out almost as if it a joke, yet serious at the same time. Someone enraged attacking another person is understandable. Someone laughing and joking while they beat another human is much more disturbing in my eyes.
But that is the point of the character and the relevant scenes. If Alex were a "tortured individual with a dark past", or the people he beats were "bad", then it wouldn't serve the purpose of the film. Sad to relate, a huge amount of real life violence by teens comparable to Alex is committed because it is a laugh. Orange is depicting that sort of teen gang aggro that exists for little more reason than "fun". Films like Watchmen have to introduce a "dark and tortured past" in order to justify their own gratuity. Snyder can point at his rape scene and say "But Comedian is this and that, so I'm justified in portraying this." Kubrik has to point to the scene and say "Alex is a rapey swine because he enjoys it." But Snyder has created the whole film "for enjoyment", whereas Orange is not about 'box office' or 'Summer Blockbuster'. Thus I would say that Orange needs 'Singing in the Rape' much more than Watchmen needs "Shoot the Baby." One is borderline gratuitous, one appears to be, but is not.
This takes me back to context. You have contextualized the violence in Watchmen, justified it in some places, or explained it in others. Why not watch the whole of Orange and then attempt to do the same?
(Incidentally, I don't think we really claim that shooting a pregnant woman is anywhere near justifiable, whether she attacked him or not. Its a massively disproportionate response.)
Agreed as long as the art is a representation rather than the deed itself, for example committing rape "in the name of art" would clearly be wrong but portraying rape in films or paintings is fine by me.
If that were the case I could justify any immoral act(s) by claiming they were done in the name of "Art".
Not if your purpose was to commit an 'immoral act', instead of simply creating a work of art. And even if it was, one could argue that art by neccessity must encompass that which some would undoubdtedly consider immoral, because immorality is as subjective as beauty. Of course, intersubjective agreement on morality lends it weight, but the same is true of beauty to a certain extent. If we are to be truly democratic with respect to art, we must accept that though the free artistic expression of others will occasionally shock and disgust us, it has a right to exist if we truly wish to be free. I find the desire to stamp out that which adherents of certain 'moral' doctrines find objectionable to be more apalling than an entirely contextually appropriate dramatised rape scene in a Kubrick film. It's a film. No-one is actually raped in that scene. It's a dramatisation used to make a point about the alienation of young people from civil society.
I would suggest that Amaya's discomfiture with the scene probably stems from some misguided feeling of impotent macho rage, as, in the film, the husband is forced to watch the rape of his wife. He seems a fairly macho individual, so I can't imagine that sitting particularly well with him. I'm not attempting to flame-bait him at all here. Let's see how he reacts, if at all.
If that were the case I could justify any immoral act(s) by claiming they were done in the name of "Art".
Not if your purpose was to commit an 'immoral act', instead of simply creating a work of art. And even if it was, one could argue that art by neccessity must encompass that which some would undoubdtedly consider immoral, because immorality is as subjective as beauty.
Bull gak. Plain and simple bull gak. It is too easy to come up with examples of things your philosophy would excuse which frankly are not ever going to acceptable.
I think we should be able to agree kidnapping kids and then killing them is immoral.
If I video tape it and sell it as 'Art' it doesn't become okay. If I skin the dead kid and make lampshades from the skin so I can display it in the Albatross Art Gallery with the video of the skinning playing in the background, it is not okay.
Is the example extreme? Yes. So is the position that nothing is immoral or even immoral acts are okay if done for the sake of "Art".
@Monster Rain - I don't get it all. If he doesn't like it, that's up to him.
FWIW, I don't generally like films that have rape scenes in either, though I DO accept that there are are circumstances under which the portrayal of them is neccessary to the film, and that this can be handled in a way which is not intended to titillate. For a terrible example of this, see Baise Moi.
Actually don't, it's gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:
Albatross wrote:
CptJake wrote:Disagree.
If that were the case I could justify any immoral act(s) by claiming they were done in the name of "Art".
Not if your purpose was to commit an 'immoral act', instead of simply creating a work of art. And even if it was, one could argue that art by neccessity must encompass that which some would undoubdtedly consider immoral, because immorality is as subjective as beauty.
Bull gak. Plain and simple bull gak.
Excellent argument, professor.
It is too easy to come up with examples of things your philosophy would excuse which frankly are not ever going to acceptable.
To whom?
I think we should be able to agree kidnapping kids and then killing them is immoral.
Yes, we can. Some other people can agree that depicting Mohammed is 'immoral'. Also, please note that 'immoral' and 'illegal' are words with discrete meanings. Whether an act can be defended as art is generally irrelevant to the legal outcome when it comes to things like murder and kidnapping. But please, keep trying to push those emotional buttons. You never know, you might just get lucky.
If I skin the dead kid and make lampshades from the skin so I can display it in the Albatross Art Gallery with the video of the skinning playing in the background, it is not okay.
To you. Or me, for that matter. I did point out that intersubjectivity lends morality weight, but I guess you ignored that bit.
Is the example extreme? Yes. So is the position that nothing is immoral or even immoral acts are okay if done for the sake of "Art".
Yes, 'immoral' acts are OK if commited for the sake of art. Deal with it. The word 'immoral' is meaningless, or rather, most (if not all) people treat it as meaning 'things I don't like'.
Monster Rain wrote:Someone explain to me all this rage at Amaya for not liking the movie, would you?
If you will explain your call of "troll" for me not liking the book.
Your statements seemed to be hyperbolic to the point that by all appearances it would be reasonable to assume that you were taking the piss out of old Ahtman.
CptJake wrote:
I think we should be able to agree kidnapping kids and then killing them is immoral.
I think these are more illegal than immoral. With the kids around my street, abducting them and stuffing them into a chipper shredder would be seen as community service.
Albatross wrote:Joey, your thoughts on art and morality?
Arbitrary distinctions. There is only impulse.
Arbitrary does not mean 'meaningless', in fact, the construction and interpretation of meaning is an important component of arbitration.
But still arbitrary. I don't care what people think about morality or art, I will go about doing what I will. Most people go about their lives just fine without bourgeois babble about morality.
CptJake wrote:I think we should be able to agree kidnapping kids and then killing them is immoral.
I think these are more illegal than immoral. With the kids around my street, abducting them and stuffing them into a chipper shredder would be seen as community service.
Lets hope that the resultant residue and spray doesn't form a pretty pattern and get photographed by a passing artist because then all your community good works will be undone.
Art: defying morality so you don't have to.
Lets take a moment to remember another immoral piece of art that was vilified in its time. WARNING! Don't let the kids watch this filth! NSFC
Amaya wrote:Outside of Dr. Strangelove and Full Metal Jacket, Kubrick is overrated in my opinion and I could accept arguments that those two films are overrated as well especially in the case of Full Metal Jacket because I have a fascination with war films and am biased in favor of it.
A Clockwork Orange is about morality, free will, totalitarianism, and in my opinion, how a society should deal with criminals. It does not endorse violence, torture, or brainwashing. It simply poses those questions.
I don't see any redeeming qualities in Alex, whereas every character in Watchmen has redeeming qualities or at least reason for being deranged.
Spoiler:
Yes, the Comedian is violent murdering sonofabitch. He also loves his daughter, is disturbed by Dr. Manhattan's loss of humanity, and is human enough to be disturbed by Veidt's ultimate plan. He's not a complete sociopath, he simply doesn't care because in his view, everything is a joke. Also, he is the cause of the majority of disturbing violence against innocents in the story, but the story opens with him getting beaten to a pulp and tossed out a window. So, yes what he did was vile, but he was punished for it. Alex suffers brainwashing, but it doesn't stick, and he ends up his old self again in a position of power. So, despite him being a sociopath he is rewarded by the end of the film, whereas the Comedian is dead at the start of his.
Let's look at Comedian's violent acts.
1) Attempted rape of the Silk Spectre. It is unsuccessful and he gets the crap beat out of him. Later on he as an affair with the Silk Spectre, giving her a child that she loves dearly. To say it's a complex situation is an understatement.
2) Murder of the pregnant woman. Yeah, it's terrible and unjustified. It is horrible and deeply disturbing? For one it was done after being provoked and slashed across the face and it happens in seconds instead of being drawn out. Both this and the "Singing in the Rain" scene are evil, but the latter scene is much more uncomfortable to watch.
Rorscach does violent things, but he does not commit acts of violence against innocents.
1) He brutally assaults violent older bullies. Does not disturb me. In this case he was victim defending himself.
2) He killed a murder/rapist that fed a young girl do his dogs. Completely justified.
3) He kills a multiple rapist and dumps the body at a police station. I don't have a problem with people killing rapists.
4) He beats the crap out of some criminals in prison. Self defense.
5) Kills Big Figure and his two goons. Self defense.
Manhattan turns people into goop. Big deal.
By far the most disturbing act in the Watchmen is Veidt wiping out millions in order to preserve peace and considering the alternative at least Veidt's act can be comprehended logically if not morally.
You can't really compare the violence between the two movies.
I'd put Spartacus up against any movie made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Someone explain to me all this rage at Amaya for not liking the movie, would you?
Angsty ragy barkey bitey, oh wait thats the wiener dogs.
On the positive when I put Tbone on the table while we were playing cards, he proceeded to lick the top of my Crown Royal bottle. Old dog's just a drunk evidently.
Most people go through their "Clockwork Orange" phase, though. Part of growing up as a a rebel, I suppose.
I'm not sure how focussing on one of the most famous, critically acclaimed movies of all time is being a rebel.
Bit like deciding to rebel by listening to The Beatles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:But if people are going to go around making up language as they go along we may as well go back to flinging gak at each other in trees.
Yeah, imagine if the English language changed from generation to generation, instead of remaining the same as it has since Jesus taught it to us. It'd just be chaos.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:I love how disliking something automatically means you don't understand it, but please go ahead and believe that move is incredibly complex and only the intellectual elite can begin to fathom its meaning.
No, you can dislike the movie and have very good reasons for it. It is not to everyone's taste.
But watching 30 minutes of it and thinking you have the film summed up is more than a little ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:The amount of arrogance in this thread is simply astounding. You probably don't even understand what the book is about. Suffice to say even the author regrets writing it because it is widely misinterpreted.
The author does rather famously dislike the movie, and is bothered that his work is associated with it. Having felt the meaning of the book to be far less interesting than the social commentary of the film, I'm really not too bothered by the opinions of the author.
Did I state that it was a bad film? No, I simply said I found it tasteless and had no desire to finish watching it. I know it may be difficult to comprehend, but not everyone likes and appreciates the same things you may enjoy.
Which is fine. You don't have to enjoy the movie, or even to have watched it. But failing to do so does make it impossible for you to meaningfully comment on it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:In fairness, in many of the movies you named, the rape is done by a bad guy, or at least the perp suffers consequences.
In Clockwork Orange, the (anti)hero is the rapist and it is made to seem cool, and at least in the movie the (anti)hero "wins" because he overcomes conditioning meant to stop future rapes and acts of senseless violence.
Yes, and he ends the film willing and capable of being just as depraved as he ever was. And that should bother people. And that should get people thinking about how that happened.
And that is the whole point of the movie.
I think you might have gotten a bit confused by assuming the film has a hero. Because even when the film has an anti-hero, you're still supposed to be on their side. Instead, Clockwork Orange simply has a protagonist. You're absolutely, 100% not supposed to be on his side. You're supposed to want him to get caught, and punished/rehabilitated/locked away for ever where he can't hurt people anymore, and you're supposed to be horrified when that doesn't happen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:It's not the level of violence or how graphic it is that bothers me, it's the careless way that it is carried out almost as if it a joke, yet serious at the same time. Someone enraged attacking another person is understandable. Someone laughing and joking while they beat another human is much more disturbing in my eyes.
And that bothered you, as it should bother most people. But it is only in the context of that that the latter scenes of society's attempted solution make any sense. Imagine if the early scenes of violence were simply implied, a set up followed by a quick cut to a black screen... the audience wouldn't be unsettled, and then when it was shown the later scenes of 'rehabilitation' it would look absurd.
And don't forget Alex wasn't only the inflictor of violence, he was also the victim. Should the police beatings, the tortorous rehabilitation, and the acts of revenge carried out by his former friends and victims have been similarly censored? If that was the case, then how might the audience have learned how the reacted differently to each scene of violence?
CptJake wrote:
I think we should be able to agree kidnapping kids and then killing them is immoral.
Depends on the kid. Being a minor doesn't automatically make you not evil, bad, worthy of disdain, etc.
CptJake wrote:
If I video tape it and sell it as 'Art' it doesn't become okay. If I skin the dead kid and make lampshades from the skin so I can display it in the Albatross Art Gallery with the video of the skinning playing in the background, it is not okay.
Is the example extreme? Yes. So is the position that nothing is immoral or even immoral acts are okay if done for the sake of "Art".
I believe that was the point of Albatross' distinction. Committing an immoral act and then calling it art is no excuse for the immoral act, but depicting an immoral act as an artistic endeavor is acceptable because art excuses itself.
Now, that doesn't mean the depiction was tasteful, or of quality, but it wasn't in itself immoral. Good taste isn't a moral virtue, or is at least difficult to argue as being one.
As to the belief that nothing is immoral: Its extreme if you have no background in philosophy, otherwise its pretty much run-of-the-mill.
Of course, I'm assuming that the word "intrinsic" figures into your statement.
If the enjoyment from angry teenage males was the same for this film and Gone With the Wind you might be on to something.
AFI put it on the top 100 movies both times, at 46 and 21, respectively. It won Best Film, Screenplay, Direction, Editing, and Cinematography from the British Academy (BAFTA), and was Nominated for Editing, Picture, Director, and Screenplay by the American Academy (AMPAS). I wouldn't call either of those bodies angsty or teenage.
That's a bit of a different context, though, don't you think?
I'm not arguing that it's not a critically acclaimed film, I'm saying that its popularity within certain demographics isn't based solely on its artistic merits.
Thing I find interesting about the Clockwork orange is that when it was first released it was banned in Australia. Then it was allowed in with an R rating and had to be cut. I saw the whole movie from start to end on late night TV a few years ago.
Perhaps we are heading for the world depicted in the story despite Anthony Burgess' warning?
Monster Rain wrote:That's a bit of a different context, though, don't you think?
I'm not arguing that it's not a critically acclaimed film, I'm saying that its popularity within certain demographics isn't based solely on its artistic merits.
It seemed more like you were trying to say that it is a movie/book that only is liked by teens, and even then they need to be angsty.
Joey wrote:It is an aboration of the English language and should not be read by anyone.
I hate it.
you do realize that this aberration of English, as you call it, was done on purpose, right? He basically created his own dialect of slang speak for the book (and by proxy, the movie).
As to you hating it, I can't comment, because to each his own.
I know.
But if people are going to go around making up language as they go along we may as well go back to flinging gak at each other in trees.
Have you ever watched Fox news?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Everybody seems to be arguing about art and morality from this. OK.
Depiction of an act is not in itself the act. I would say that art depicts a repugnant act so that the lessons that lead to the judgement of morality can be made without exposure to the actual act. Further it is necessary for art to challenge accepted morality so that the freedom of a society can not be restricted by the overbearing morality of some individuals or groups.
A Clockwork Orange depicts the fear that society may degrade to the point where youths may commit such violence it is not meant to glorify the acts but to show how the antihero Alex feels about them.
Albatross wrote:Joey, your thoughts on art and morality?
Arbitrary distinctions. There is only impulse.
Arbitrary does not mean 'meaningless', in fact, the construction and interpretation of meaning is an important component of arbitration.
But still arbitrary.
Do you actually know what that word means?
I don't care what people think about morality or art, I will go about doing what I will.
No you won't. You are acted upon by the morality of others, at all times. You might not care about gravity, but jump off the roof and you will most certainly hit the ground.
Most people go about their lives just fine without bourgeois babble about morality.
What does class have to do with this? And no they don't.
Monster Rain wrote:That's a bit of a different context, though, don't you think?
I'm not arguing that it's not a critically acclaimed film, I'm saying that its popularity within certain demographics isn't based solely on its artistic merits.
It seemed more like you were trying to say that it is a movie/book that only is liked by teens, and even then they need to be angsty.
Nope. Basically, my argument is that A Clockwork Orange is revered by some based almost entirely for its "shock" value. While it definitely has artistic merits, pretending that this is the reason for its popularity among certain groups just isn't accurate.
Monster Rain wrote:That's a bit of a different context, though, don't you think?
I'm not arguing that it's not a critically acclaimed film, I'm saying that its popularity within certain demographics isn't based solely on its artistic merits.
It seemed more like you were trying to say that it is a movie/book that only is liked by teens, and even then they need to be angsty.
Nope. Basically, my argument is that A Clockwork Orange is revered by some based almost entirely for its "shock" value. While it definitely has artistic merits, pretending that this is the reason for its popularity among certain groups just isn't accurate.
I'd imagine now days its not shocking, other than not understanding what's being said. Its almost tame at this point.
Whats also interesting to me is the whole "wo its so futury violent" go to East LA. Reality is worlds worse than that movie/book.
Not sure if it is the same over in the USA, but over here (at least, amongst my peer group) A Clockwork Orange had attained a near-mythical status in much the same way as The Exorcist did. Probably because they were either banned or skirted the line at being banned it aroused the taboo-gland in us youngsters; a way to snub our noses at the establishment by viewing films that they deemed not viewable.
Frazzled wrote:Well the Exorcist is genuinely terrifying. Even though spoofed and copied, put it on a big screen again and some of the old flair is back.
I only saw Clockwork Orange as a hormone teen and the uncensored factor of it was like "wow!" but that was kind of it.
Plus McDowell is just a damn fine actor in anything.
The only reason The Exorcist was revered as such was because there was an urban myth going round that there was a scene in it where a crucifix is inserted into a not oft depicted location (not sure if it is true or not; I have never seen the film). Of course this immediately guaranteed the film placement on the list of shocking films to see - pure teenage titillation and shock value at best.
If the enjoyment from angry teenage males was the same for this film and Gone With the Wind you might be on to something.
It certainly appeals to kids because it's ultraviolent and highly stylised. In that sense it's no different to 40K. I'm just not sure that the kids think it makes them rebels, though, as much as being something they happen to think is cool at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Magpie wrote:Perhaps we are heading for the world depicted in the story despite Anthony Burgess' warning?
There was no warning in Burgess' novel. That really wasn't the point of the thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Nope. Basically, my argument is that A Clockwork Orange is revered by some based almost entirely for its "shock" value. While it definitely has artistic merits, pretending that this is the reason for its popularity among certain groups just isn't accurate.
Which is a fair summary. From your first post it sounded like you were saying this was the only reason it is revered, and while that isn't true it likely is for certain demographics (ie teen boys).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Well the Exorcist is genuinely terrifying. Even though spoofed and copied, put it on a big screen again and some of the old flair is back.
I only saw Clockwork Orange as a hormone teen and the uncensored factor of it was like "wow!" but that was kind of it.
Plus McDowell is just a damn fine actor in anything.
The film really is a lot more than just shock value. Aside from simply brilliant score, it delivers an unrelenting message about the justice system, and about politics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
filbert wrote:The only reason The Exorcist was revered as such was because there was an urban myth going round that there was a scene in it where a crucifix is inserted into a not oft depicted location (not sure if it is true or not; I have never seen the film). Of course this immediately guaranteed the film placement on the list of shocking films to see - pure teenage titillation and shock value at best.
The reason the Exorcist was a surprise hit was due to the rumour about it really happening. But lots of films have been surprise hits because of clever marketing. That stupid Ashley Judd movie Double Jeopardy was little more than a telly movie that stumbled onto the big screen, but it spent three weeks at number one in part because of a rumour that there really totally had been a case like this.
And yet that stupid Ashley Judd movie is almost completely forgotten, while The Exorcist is still talked about today. In part because it is still a really scary movie, and also because it was a masterfully made movie, that really had a lot to say about faith.
