a clockwork orange

abstract

Dagobah Resident
a couple weeks back i had finished reading "a clockwork orange" by anthony burgess. I actually had seen the movie before reading the book, and what had attracted me was less the

story in itself and more the fabulous vocabulary used in this book. Words like "viddy" and "glazzies", "rookers" "moloko" and so on, were quite entertaining to come across, and it's fun to

try and decipher the words, which i pretty much could based on their context, except a couple occassions. Although the main character is pathological (he is also the narrator) I found the

story to be quite interesting and variated. There's even a very funny twist at the end of the book, and i don't want to spoil it, but it involves life changes and growing up and so forth,

which puts you in a weird mood after you finish it. :lol:
 
I haven't read the book. It's been quite some time since I watched the movie, but I remember absolutely hating it, which makes me afraid to watch it again. My boyfriend has never seen it and went to pick it up at Blockbuster the other day, to which I replied, "Please don't." :/ :)
 
Well, i find it interesting how the story is set in the future, and of course the future never quite turns out how we think it will, so it's interesting to kind of see what people thought of as "futuristic" 20 or 30 or even 50 years ago.
 
I do find myself often disappointed that we didn't end up with the flying cars we were promised by 2000 when I was a small child!!
 
Funny you should mention this movie. I just saw it again a couple of weeks ago and almost posted about it in this section.

The language is quite interesting as it is made up. I thought it was a good example of how some psychopaths think and also how they can affect the behaviors of the people around them. I also liked the issues concerning free will versus forcing someone change their behavior. It also addresses the issue of ponerology in governments and religion.

(spoiler alert) What I wasn't crazy about was the ending. I wasn't sure if he was "cured" (reverted back to his "normal" behavior) or not. If he did revert, when did it happen, during the fall?

All in all, a good movie. While shocking, I don't think it was nearly as graphic as many other movies made at that time and certainly not today. I did however turn my head away a couple of times so for what it's worth...
 
A classic to read for different reasons with 1984 in my humble opinion.
The slang words are derived from Russian.

_http://soomka.com/nadsat.html

I don't think the movie is as graphic as what is being done today but it still disturbing because of the obvious psychopathy of the character.

The topic of the movie itself is timeless because it deals with youth violence (psychopathy) and the methods used to "cure" it.

Interestingly enough, you are led to sympathize a bit with the character because he is subjected to visual torture as to change his asocial and dangereous behavior.

Which fails in the end, how can psychopathy be cured ?


A Clockwork Orange started its life as a novella written by the English author Anthony Burgess. The first draft, written whilst Burgess supposed he was dying of an inoperable cerebral tumor, presented the world of adolescent violence and governmental retribution in the slang that was current at the time among the hooligan groups known as the "Teddy boys" and the "Mods and Rockers". In early 1961 in a fit bill of health and realising that the slang of his earlier draft would soon be outdated, he decided that the story properly belonged in the future. That year Burgess spent part of the summer in Soviet Russia where he observed,

The authorities had problems with turbulent youth not much different from our own. The Stilyagi, or style-boys, were smashing faces and windows, and the police, apparently obsessed with ideological and fiscal crimes, seemed powerless to keep them under control. It struck me that it might be a good idea to create a young kind of hooligan who bestrode the iron curtain and "spoke an argot compounded of the two most powerful political languages in the world -- Anglo-American and Russian. The irony of the style would lie in the hero-narrator being totally unpolitical.

Even at this early stage A Clockwork Orange discovered its first potential censor when Burgess' literary agent was unwilling to submit the novella to a publisher alleging that its "pornography of violence would be certain to make it unacceptable".. .

_http://www.periwork.com/coates/research%20projects/Frossard%20a%20&%20Charbonnier%20b/KUBRICK%20PAGE%20COUV.htm


The most obvious psychopath in a Kubrick film is Alex (played by Malcolm McDowell) in A Clockwork Orange. In Clockwork, we find ourselves listening to Alex's narration as he tells the story of his career. In Alex, Kubrick has created a character who is simultaneously attractive and repellant. He is bright, witty, handsome, self-confident, brave (plays "chicken" in motorcars), adventurous, splendidly fashionable in dress, lover of Beethoven, and has a highly developed esthetic sense which is demonstrated in the following narration describing the sensations of driving in the country at night....

But at the same time, Alex is totally devoid of any empathy for other human beings. He has no moral scruples or conscience. He is sadistic, narcissistic, sexually promiscuous, a liar and deceiver, and is driven by fantasies of power and dominance. He and his hoodlum droogs prowl nightly beating up drunks, fighting with rivals, and looking for opportunities to rob, rape, and pummel their victims. Alex sees his crimes almost as a peculiar form of artistic expression. The victims are usually chosen randomly (those unfortunates who happen to be driving the other way when they play "kings of the road", or the writer and his wife). Alex and his droogs are masked and the violence is theatrical, accompanied by strange touches such as Gene Kelly song and dance numbers ("Singing in the Rain")....

Manipulation is another tool of the psychopath often used by Alex. He lies to his parents and to his truant officer in order to manipulate them. When Alex is caught and charged with murder, he typically tries to shift blame to his droogs and to deny responsibility. Once he is imprisoned, he adopts the role of model prisoner, "sucking up" to the chaplain by pretending to study the Bible (secretly finding more material for his sadist and sexual fantasies therein). During his conditioning he attempts to manipulate the scientists....

As might be expected, the choice of such a protagonist for an important film by such a well known director as Kubrick resulted in a storm of critical controversy. Kubrick was accused of pandering to violent behavior if not outrightly promoting it. In an interview in the New York Times, Kubrick explained that although he is fascinated by violence, he is not advocating it (or anything else) in the film, but merely portraying it: "Part of the artistic challenge of the character is to present the violence as he sees it, not with the disapproving eye of the moralist, but subjectively, as Alex experiences it."[15] From this standpoint, in my view, Kubrick has succeeded masterfully in letting us see into the mind of a psychopathic personality. But Kubrick goes further in the interview in explaining his reasons for his fascination with Alex: "I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.... The idea that social restraints are all bad is based on a utopian and unrealistic vision of man."...

Kubrick is expressing an idea here that accords with Sowell's[16] description of the "constrained" view of human nature which posits that it is flawed and largely fixed, and that efforts to build utopias will invariably founder on the rocks of human failings and will reflect the imperfections of their builders. Variations on this view have been held by such historical figures as Adam Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Thomas Hobbes, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman...

_http://www.gordonbanks.com/gordon/pubs/kubricks.html


FWIW
 
Tigersoap said:
Interestingly enough, you are led to sympathize a bit with the character because he is subjected to visual torture as to change his asocial and dangereous behavior.

This was interesting as I didn't initially see it that way. Throughout the movie I was thinking "psychopath" although as you said, I did feel bad for the torture inflicted on him. I think one can also be led to believe what the filmmaker was trying to get across which was that his behavior was "normal" because he was just being himself.

But Kubrick goes further in the interview in explaining his reasons for his fascination with Alex: "I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure.... The idea that social restraints are all bad is based on a utopian and unrealistic vision of man."...

It would be interesting to see that quote in it's full context... I think here is where Kubrick's argument falls apart. He doesn't realize that there are separate individuals but rather thinks that the traits of the psychopath are accessible to everyone. To him, everyone is evil (has the seeds of psychopathy in them).

I do think at the end of the movie/book that he sort of gives a nod to the nature of evil not being able to be contained or "cured".
 
abstract said:
a couple weeks back i had finished reading "a clockwork orange" by anthony burgess. I actually had seen the movie before reading the book, and what had attracted me was less the

story in itself and more the fabulous vocabulary used in this book. Words like "viddy" and "glazzies", "rookers" "moloko" and so on, were quite entertaining to come across, and it's fun to

try and decipher the words, which i pretty much could based on their context, except a couple occassions.

Kind of a sidebar here, but if you found the deciphering interesting, here's another you might enjoy: http://www.amazon.com/Riddley-Walker-Expanded-Russell-Hoban/dp/0253212340/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265105186&sr=8-1

A warning though, as one reviewer put it:

In this age of prefab thinking and easily packaged messages, he's just plain too challenging for most people. No spoon feeding. No easy outs. /Riddley Walker/ is not a book for people accustomed to hearing what they think they want to hear. But for people who can do the work of meeting him halfway...jeez, the riches!

The book is about communicating, on many levels.
 
Hi Truthseeker,

Truthseeker said:
This was interesting as I didn't initially see it that way. Throughout the movie I was thinking "psychopath" although as you said, I did feel bad for the torture inflicted on him. I think one can also be led to believe what the filmmaker was trying to get across which was that his behavior was "normal" because he was just being himself.

In fact I think it is normal to feel empathy for someone being tortured, even if this person has no conscience, that's where some overlap occurs imho because the government is no better than Alex himself (rightly so) so it only shows the vision of Kubrick about the world and human nature...


FYI

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage," says Kubrick, reaching for the iced water. "He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved--that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure."

Nice boy from the Bronx ? (McGregor interview)

_http://partners.nytimes.com/library/film/013072kubrick-profile.html

The violence done to Alex in the brain-washing sequence is in fact more horrifying than anything he does himself....

It was absolutely necessary to give weight to Alex's brutality, otherwise I think there would be moral confusion with respect to what the government does to him. If he were a lesser villain, then one could say: 'Oh, yes, of course, he should not be given this psychological conditioning; it's all too horrible and he really wasn't that bad after all.' On the other hand, when you have shown him committing such atrocious acts, and you still realise the immense evil on the part of the government in turning him into something less than human in order to make him good, then I think the essential moral idea of the book is clear. It is necessary for man to have choice to be good or evil, even if he chooses evil. To deprive him of this choice is to make him something less than human -- a clockwork orange.

Interview with Stanley Kubrick regarding A Clockwork Orange by Philip Strick & Penelope Houston

_http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0070.html


Interesting how Kubrick was very influential and his vision of mankind was skewed, seems to fit the need to make people despair about humanity as a whole through art...
 
Brenda86 said:
I haven't read the book. It's been quite some time since I watched the movie, but I remember absolutely hating it, which makes me afraid to watch it again. My boyfriend has never seen it and went to pick it up at Blockbuster the other day, to which I replied, "Please don't." :/ :)

I saw it many many years ago and I remember also that I did not like it at all.
 
This sounds like the timeless schizoid declaration to me:

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage," says Kubrick, reaching for the iced water. "He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved--that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure."

And this bothers me...

The violence done to Alex in the brain-washing sequence is in fact more horrifying than anything he does himself....

It was absolutely necessary to give weight to Alex's brutality, otherwise I think there would be moral confusion with respect to what the government does to him. If he were a lesser villain, then one could say: 'Oh, yes, of course, he should not be given this psychological conditioning; it's all too horrible and he really wasn't that bad after all.' On the other hand, when you have shown him committing such atrocious acts, and you still realise the immense evil on the part of the government in turning him into something less than human in order to make him good, then I think the essential moral idea of the book is clear. It is necessary for man to have choice to be good or evil, even if he chooses evil. To deprive him of this choice is to make him something less than human -- a clockwork orange.

...because if I remember correctly Alex has a rape scene and a scene where he beats up an old man and woman. Trying to put such intense violence on a judgement scale is anti-intuitive to me. He and The State or both horrible in this movie.

If I have to sift out massive amounts of violence to try to find the message in a piece of media, I am not sure it is appropriate viewing material for me. If I want to watch a film about the ponerization of society I would rewatch "V for Vendetta" or "Evidence of Revision" but never again "A Clockwork Orange."

Many high school kids idolize this movie, and for what reasons, I am not entirely sure. Maybe the hypocrisy of The State reminds them of their own parent's hypocrisies. I personally think this film is a good example for this thread:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=15878.0

I am also sad that Beethoven's 9th is associated with this film, but that is just because I think it is a beautiful piece of music.

For me the bottom line is if you don't want to watch women being raped and old people getting beat up with the story finally having a basically nihilistic ending, don't watch this film.
 
"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage," says Kubrick, reaching for the iced water. "He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests are involved--that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably doomed to failure."

Tigersoap said:
Interesting how Kubrick was very influential and his vision of mankind was skewed, seems to fit the need to make people despair about humanity as a whole through art...

I cannot agree with this opinion. My view is that what Kubrick posits was based on what he believed humanity to be. Kubrick did not know that humanity consists of pre-Adamic/OP and Adamic populations along with the failed OPs/psychopaths. Perhaps if he had had that knowledge, his viewpoint would have been vastly different. His conclusions were based on what he thought he knew and he could see the psychopathic behavior and concluded that it must surely be inherent as no other explanation must have made sense to him. Even with this inaccurate viewpoint, Kubrick made a film not only showing the traits of a psychopath, but the moral failings of a control system's (government) actions in dealing with such individuals - they were bigger monsters than the monster! I also think he was right to say that there was a level of denial as to the true nature of psychopaths, which he incorrectly attributed to all men/humanity, and therefore, the measures being taken to deal with these issues could not possibly be successful. And was he not correct? Have our penal/correctional systems been a roaring success? Perhaps only in the sense of producing more knowledgeable criminals.

I have not seen A Clockwork Orange. When it came out, I was aware that it was a sickly violent movie and I had no interest in seeing something like that. I would have been, no doubt, traumatized by it and the underlying message would have been totally lost on me, partly because I was too young and naive and partly because the sick violence would have overwhelmed my ability to discern anything from the whole. Later on in life I saw Searching for Mr. Goodbar. This was probably the early stages of offering such movies to the general public. I can tell you that the entire audience left the theater in stunned silence. A friend I went with asked me why I recommended seeing that movie and I told him I thought it was going to be good. I had no idea as to what I was going to be subjected to. After all, I grew up on Disney movies and other family fare.

Sometime after that experience I went to see Death Wish. Viewing the opening scenes of the women being raped and murdered, I thought my head was going to explode! I made up my mind right then and there NEVER to see another movie like that for the rest of my life! I absolutely HATE horror movies especially of the slash and torture variety and any and all movies and tv shows depicting human violence, especially rape/murder of women/children which have experienced an incredible reign of popularity in our current times. Of course, I now know why this is so and for the readers of this forum, so do you. My 2 cents, FWIW
 
Gandalf said:
Brenda86 said:
I haven't read the book. It's been quite some time since I watched the movie, but I remember absolutely hating it, which makes me afraid to watch it again. My boyfriend has never seen it and went to pick it up at Blockbuster the other day, to which I replied, "Please don't." :/ :)
I saw it many many years ago and I remember also that I did not like it at all.

Same here... I did NOT like it at all, it was too dark and creepy for me
and I saw this long before I discovered SOTT, I think. I do NOT want
to revisit what was not pleasant and has no basis in protecting the
soul in some way - i.e. to help oneself to learning 'what is out there'
that might have a basis to reality, in order to defend oneself. But to
learn of perverse thoughts and become ponerized, that is another matter,
sometimes hard to defend against, if one is not prepared and aware of it.

OSIT,
Dan
 
Jeep, I also saw Looking For Mr. Goodbar and found the ending completely shocking.

I too think that Kubrick's understanding of psychopaths was limited.
 
Back
Top Bottom