Once again the film snobs strike. It was an interesting film but I wouldn’t consider it a great science fiction film. Slightly above average at the most.
Which posts are you calling strikes of the film snobs? And I wouldn’t call it science fiction at all.
I feel like there are two strikes against that way of putting it: first, let’s make sure we’re talking about – well, not locking him in a dungeon and forgetting about him, but putting the criminal in a regular prison; and, second, the question is, do we then ask if he chooses to stay in prison or if he’d prefer to undergo the treatment?
Do you believe it’s more civilized and moral to give that vicious criminal a choice, or to keep that vicious criminal behind bars without bothering to ask him?
Having read the comments in this thread, I’ll have to plead ignorance and ask “Was it really in a dystopian society?” I mean, I know that the second trip back to the one guy’s house was weird, but, I just thought that McDowell, being a POS, was being served a bit of weirdness by Karma.
At any rate, it being a dystopian scenario would give me a better opinion of it. Kind of.
Thanks for all the input, all.
It’s not just the style and references in other works of fiction, but how tame it appears compared to reality. Home invasions, rampant gun violence, school shootings, and the like make it much more difficult to make a fictional society appear dystopian in terms of violence.
I saw 1984, with John Hurt and it was awesome; about the same for Blade Runner. I can’t remember if I saw F451 all the way through, but, I didn’t like the production value so, I’ll have to disregard that one.
I can’t help what anyone else says, I only said “**I **was underwhelmed…WTF am I missing?” which I think is quite different.
We’ll happily abandon la grève cinématique and return au travail when toutes our demandes are satisfaites. <sniff>
Fair enough.
I appreciate that you’re giving it an honest chance, and not just dismissing it.
Re. the first point, I was responding to Fenris’s stance that the treatment was justified because it stopped Alex’s violent behavior. (Keeping him in regular prison is beside the point; he *could *still be violent there, although in the story Alex is not–he is in fact a model prisoner, keeping his nose clean because he wants out as soon as possible.) But the treatment strips away an essential part of his humanity; and the moral quandary is, is that any better than killing him outright?
Re. the second point, yes, he was given a choice and underwent the treatment voluntarily in order to get out of prison, but he had no idea what he was letting himself in for. (Note that the doctors keep him in the dark about the nature of the treatment, and outright lie about the drug they administer.) As it turns out, he finds the effects of the treatment so unbearable that he tries to commit suicide.
Yeah, and Kubrick’s Cowardly Old World completely missed Huxley’s point!
I saw “A Clockwork Orange” in the movie theater when it first came out in the summer of 1972, and thought it was brilliant. I have seen it numerous times since and just about every aspect of the film enthralls me.
But it’s important to note that even when it came out, it was met with mixed emotions. The legendary The New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael summarized it this way:
“Cold and repellent. Stanley Kubrick’s new film might be the work of a strict and exacting German professor who set out to make a porno-violent-sci-fi comedy.”
Well, yes, but not to, you know, law-abiding citizens who’d rightly call for the police to take away a guy who’ll rape an innocent woman as soon as cripple an innocent man. And speaking in my professional capacity as just such an innocent man, I want criminals like him to be kept from harming law-abiding citizens like me – either by prison walls or chemical treatment, his choice all the way.
Because, otherwise, I’d kinda haveta – as you say – shoot him.
See, I think that’d be for him to decide…
…except, well, this. But it strikes me as a much weaker, though more accurate, case: saying the problem isn’t the treatment, if he goes into it with – if you will – his eyes open; the problem is just that he didn’t know what he was getting into.
That, if he knew what it was to become a clockwork orange, and said ‘yes’, why, then, who are we to deny him?
I don’t remember if it was in the movie, but in the book, he and his cellmates beat a new prisoner to death. True, the guy had climbed into bed with Alex, but he was hardly being a model prisoner. That’s what convinced the Minister of the Interior or Inferior that he was a good candidate for the Ludovico technique.
It is similar to the issue of contractual slavery. If someone of free will gives up the right to even have free will, is that acceptable? Does it make a difference that the person in question is utterly horrible?
It is no secret that civil liberties issues often “star” a complainant who is utterly horrible - presumably, that’s why those choosing to encroach on liberties chose them to encroach on - the natural reaction (of the authorities and the public alike) is that pretty well anything done to someone so vile is well deserved.
That’s what gives this movie such power: that reasonable people watching it can come to quite different conclusions.
One person sees an utter monster getting his just deserts at first, but then using false sympathy to ‘get off’ his quite righteous punishment. From that POV the ending of the movie is utterly maddening: Alex smiling as he’s pampered and made much of - this guy who has raped and murdered without the slightest care for others.
Others see an attempt by the government to introduce a horrific level of control over humanity, and the nasty sociopath merely being fodder for that attempt. Alex is a villain no doubt, but a total piker compared to the government, who has plans for manipulation that go far beyond anything Alex could possibly attempt in harming others.
The movie itself doesn’t take a particular POV on the matter - it is detached, by presenting the action from the sociopath’s POV. You aren’t, I think, supposed to empathize with him.
McDowell was the perfect bit of casting. He already had the rascally face, but his expressions were just so deliciously evil…you gotta love it.
And the second home-invasion scene (the one where he was betrayed by his droogies) was hilarious…well, until you get to the beatings, of course. Even then, there was something cartoonish about it.
Fahrenheit Green had its moments. The scene where it turned out the miracle food was old books was pretty powerful.
Am I right in recalling that in the movie it is implied that Alex, and probably others, were removed from the prison and taken into treatment to make place for political dissidents? So, presumably, the treatment couldn’t “cure” those whose anti-societal behavior stemmed from some political conviction?
I don’t know where this observation would lead as to the moral (if there be any!) of the film though.
I don’t remember that, but I do know that Alex volunteered.
I don’t know about that - as far as I can recall, Alex is the first and only subject, a test subject.
The “Dissidents” are personified in the guy Alex beats (and whose wife he rapes) while singing “singing in the rain”. He takes Alex in and then attempts to drive him to suicide (when he figures out who he is, because of him singing “singing in the rain” in his house), for two reasons: to embarrass and discredit the government, and to gain revenge.
Critically, this fellow says the following about the government in a telephone conversation:
“…Recruiting brutal young roughs into the police; proposing debilitating and will-sapping techniques of conditioning. Oh, we’ve seen it all before in other countries; the thin end of the wedge! Before we know where we are, we shall have the full apparatus of totalitarianism.”
Later, the government jails him - for attempting to drive Alex to suicide.
I suppose the question for the viewer is whether this guy is right, or whether on the other hand the government is right when faced with people like Alex. As we’ve seen, people argue both sides as if they were clearly true.
The problem I have with the movie (and I had the same problem when I first saw it, in 1979) is that the second half really drags. The first hour was, for the time, shocking and spectacular. But after Alex gets arrested, everything feels slow, didactic, and anti-climactic.