Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/02/26 03:48:19
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.)
"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all" Mario Savio
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".
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
@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'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/26 22:00:17
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.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
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.
I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.
That is not dead which can eternal lie ...
... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
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.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
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
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/27 00:18:41
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/27 03:48:39
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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?
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2012/02/27 06:53:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/02/27 07:02:27
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
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.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
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.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
