Saw “A Clockwork Orange” for the first time yesterday morning.
I was underwhelmed. I’m sure that, had I seen it in the 70s, I would have been underwhelmed as well.
Malcolm McDowell was, of course, cool/awesome, but, oh!, wait- the topless women were pretty hot, but, that was about it.
Yawn.
Why all the acclaim?? WTF am I missing? If you can’t answer, don’t worry. I, truthfully, don’t think that I *am *missing anything.
No matter how acclaimed a film, piece of art, novel, musical composition, play, etc. is, there will always be someone who will say, “Meh. That was overrated.”
I guess, to see whether you “missed anything,” I’d start with asking a question: do you find, or have you previously found, stories set in dystopian worlds compelling in themselves? In other words, fiction that exaggerate problems or concerns from the real world into nightmarish contexts in order to call attention to the roots and potential consequences of those problems, if they were allowed to run unchecked: has such a story been interesting to you? If so, which one? (E.g. Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Blade Runner, etc.)
Also, if you were to summarize the plot in a neutral way, so that your disapprobation were concealed, how would that go? Could you do so in such a way as to demonstrate that you fully understood the film, without dipping into polemics about it?
It’s a visually striking film that pretty much misses the point of Huxley’s novel, which is unsurprising since Kubrick really just wanted an excuse to make a mainstream porn film.
Stranger
Once again the archetype doesn’t look as good compared to all the films it spawned. I don’t think it was fantastic myself, but it would have looked much better in the 70s. Sadly, in the time since reality caught up to the fantasy.
The electronic music and dark dystopian visual aesthetic were extremely innovative at the time.
The novel A Clockwork Orange is by Anthony Burgess.
The second part of your statement is just as inaccurate as the first.
ETA: Burgess is on record saying that he thought the film was “brilliant.”
Ah yes. Scott McCloud is proven right once again: people who only understand surface can’t understand how important a particular work is because they’ve seen flashier knockoffs that make the original seem crude.
Another question for the OP: have you done as much as read the Wikipedia entry for the film, to see if there’s some basic point that you did, in fact, miss? In particular, in the “Themes” and “Production” sections?
Books and movies sometimes balance each other in interesting ways. For instance, I read three of the Dune books, but the movie, iffy as is was, emphasized some aspects of the book that I had not picked up on. If you have trouble understanding a classic movie, read the book. A Clockwork Orange can be a challenging book because of the odd vernacular, but it will emphasize the important aspect of the story that you missed watching the movie.
Indeed. Kubrick explicitly stated, “I was excited by everything about it: The plot, the ideas, the characters, and, of course, the language. The story functions, of course, on several levels: Political, sociological, philosophical, and, what’s most important, on a dreamlike psychological-symbolic level,” but also that, “I think whatever Burgess had to say about the story was said in the book, but I did invent a few useful narrative ideas and reshape some of the scenes.”
A film is inevitably not the same art form as a novel. While Kubrick’s screenplay is actually is most respects quite faithful to the novel, he was obligated by the change of medium to find something new to say about it, and do a few things differently.
I think the biggest thing you’re missing is that you saw it for the first time in 2016.
I don’t know your age, but I’m guessing that in your life, thus far, you’ve seen hundreds of movies, TV shows, video games and videos.
Hundreds of violent stories with hundreds of violent scenes.
There’s NO WAY (emphasis mine) you can react to something years and years after it debuted, the same way those who saw it for the first time reacted to it.
I saw it in the late 70’s as a 16 year old. Just months earlier I’d seen “Star Wars” in the theater, the month it opened. Up to that point in my life I’d just seen prime time TV, there were no video games, and for movies, just what had been released up until 1977. A film like Kubrick’s version of “A Clockwork Orange” with what it was telling and showing was a huge shock, very different than anything I’d seen before.
Sure, you could not like the story, or the acting or direction. You can give an opinion whether you enjoyed or not, a movie.
BUT if you didn’t see it when it premiered, and have been exposed to SO MUCH other violent images before seeing it now, you can’t disqualify it for it’s impact at the tine. You weren’t there.
Aldous Huxley, on the other hand, did not give an opinion of the film, having died eight years before its release.
Agreed. I saw it in 1972, when it first opened, when I was 21 and a junior in college. It was ground breaking and mind-blowing at the time.
I recently watched it again, and while I still think it was brilliant, it seemed a bit faded. But this was after 40 years of seeing much better effects and even more extreme visions of the future.
The OP is clearly missing a great deal, which is the context in which the movie came out and what had preceded it. It really is impossible to appreciate a ground breaking movie in the same way as when it first appeared as after the ground has been broken for 40 years.
Huxley died more than 16 years before his most well-known novel made it to the screen.
Kubrick’s movie follows the initial American editions of the book, in which Burgess had been compelled by his American publishers to omit the last chapter, which brings some redemption to Alex as he finds he is no longer attracted to violence as he matures. Thus Kubrick’s version ends up being a good deal darker than Burgess’s original version. I would not say that this “misses Burgess’s point,” since there are a lot of other points to the book that the movie depicts very faithfully.
You would need to tell us what you got out of it for us to tell you what you missed.
Topless women make everything better. :o
A good thing, too. That first TV version was awful.
The second one was better.
George Orwell also died before his dystopian novel first hit the screen, also thankfully (although he might have liked the second version)
Congratulations to Burgess for beating the trend!
But none of that is really relevant to this thread.
Richard’s point is good: a sheltered-person’s perspective: I was shown it in college by my drama-school mates who were working innocent and sheltered me through a (to them) comprehensive curricula of popular culture and counter culture. When I saw it then, I was shocked by the violence and ‘pornography’ of the film, and thought it was very overwhelming and effective in laying out this horrid violence-loving alternate world. I read the book after, and thought the film was very true to the basic sense of the world there too. (Although I was perplexed/relieved by the less-grim ending.)
I recently re-watched it, to show it to my husband, who just hadn’t ever seen it - but had actually been a normal socialized human who has seen other modern films through his life. It didn’t hold up well, in my opinion. I’d been so impressed with it before because I hadn’t seen anything like it before, and because I was still very inexperienced with film in general.
Might I suggest, if you didn’t the first time, watch it with subtitles on. When I first saw it long ago, I had trouble parsing what exactly they were saying to the point I would be thinking about one line too long and completely miss the next. I’m not deaf (I don’t think?), but lots of the weird dialog I was hearing I couldn’t tell if it was an actual word I misheard, or just weird vernacular. Watching it for the first time with subtitles completely changed my view of the film, and the way I watch films. I watch them all with subtitles now.