A Clockwork Orange (1971)

[Marroe]

Originally posted by stubbornforgey


I enjoyed the movie but not so much the storyline.

I liked the "point" of the movie, but could hardly stand watching it.

[Maerlyn]

Excellent movie. Among my favourite 20 films. One can see Kubrick's genius in this one.

[PR3SSUR3]

came out years before trainspotting
so if there are any similarities ..it would be
the latter

Get the fuck out of here.

:eek:

[stubbornforgey]

just making a factual point :D
no need to drop a ball bag over it !!

[Festered]

Originally Posted by Doc Faustus

I would first of all, classify Clockwork Orange, as at least to some degree a horror film. Lit-fic often tries to dodge genre distinctions to avoid looking like trash, but I think a film using displays of violence didactically and presenting a dark alternate history could be called a horror film. The movie has a foot in the door of a lot of genres, but I would say that horror is one of the more solid of them. Burgess wrote the book and Kubrick made the movie for the same reason Mary Shelley told us not to play god with Frankenstein. A Clockwork Orange terrifies and provokes to remind us of another moral; that a person is a person and cannot be rendered inorganic and cannot be remade no matter how much we try. In the same way Victor Frankenstein's attempt to make a man fails, so too does Burgess' draconian regime's attempt. Frankenstein is a foundation of literary horror and is every bit as didactic and artistic and utilizes methods that looked just as scary and scandalous at the time to make it's point. I think it's also right that a Clockwork Orange is comical. Alex's sadistic glee and nonchalant approach toward killing, not to mention his hillariously earnest narration are quite funny, or even if not funny to the viewer, intended to be comedic. This movie commits acts of aggression against the viewer to teach, not because it's for people who like rape. Personal sensitivities are to be respected, but a film's intentions should be too.

Burgess said in an interview, around the time of the film's release, that the book was a sort of act of revenge. His wife had been raped by American GIs stationed in England. He, in fact, was the author in the book. The book is a terrific read, BTW.

[Dahlia]

I loved the book (still read it from time to time) and I loved the movie. I think the movie did have some intentional comedy. There had to be some juxtaposition to the ultra-violence. I was pleased that the film kept most of the book's slang because that made the violence even more horrific. The slang was funny and even a little too cute in ways thus making the violence extremely jarring. I also think the rape scene was necessary because the reader/viewer had to be horrified to make the story work. You had to go along thinking that Alex needed this treatment, that he was a monster deserving of his treatment. It's your own guilt about this that makes the story effective.

Just my own humble analysis...

[Nella]

Originally Posted by alkytrio666

No I did not.

But seriously, you shouldn't knock someone if they don't feel comfortable watching something like rape. Rape is a much more serious and realistic scenario than exploding heads, my friend, and although you aren't sensitive about it, others might be.

I'm glad I read this thread. I will not be reading the book nor watching the movie.

[Ferox13]

There is rape, murder and brutality in the film, which was for its time, got the film band

Film Band? Do u mean THE ADDICTS.



Actually it wasn't banned by any censorship board - it Kubrick himself who asked for the film to be withdrawn from circulation.