I saw this film for the first time the other day and would like to hear other people’s views about it.
Points that stood out for me: i) the sadness of the alienation between Alex and his parents ii) the hypocrisy of Mr Alexander, the liberal writer in the avant-garde house, who turns out to be the nastiest piece of work in the whole film iii) the vile arrangement the government makes with Alex to dig them out of hole and get them electable again iv) the wonderful acting of Malcolm Maclaren v) the genius of the direction.
If you’ve got a bit of time on your hands, or if you want to make sure you understood how the film ends, check out filmsite, which includes a detailed synopsis.
Here’s one I’m not sure you’ve heard from me before: I agree. (;)) Although I can understand why Kubrick later regretted the movie, since it’s very cold and seems to make a hero of Alex…
Malcolm McLaren? He wishes he’d been in that movie!
I’m not sure it’s fair to call Mr. Alexander “the nastiest piece of work,” as he is not in his right mind in the latter part of the movie (with just a little overacting to get that across), and he himself is being used by the other opposition party members.
I always used to call this my favorite movie of all time, though I’ve backed off on that in recent years.
I don’t know if I’d say Alex is portrayed as a hero. I think two of the main points of the film are the importance of free will (or individuality), and the possible terrible consequences of the state impinging on that free will…so I think it’s not so much that Alex is a hero as that the state is the enemy.
In fact, I think the book shows Alex in a more positive light than the movie does, since he (warning, gives away the ending to the book, which is different than the film)
makes the choice himself, without coercion, to change his violent ways. In a sense I feel that the film missed an important element of the book in this regard - the maturity of the mind.
I agree that it is a great film and a perfect fit for Kubrick’s directorial tendencies.
Yes, I heard it once…in 1962…for 20 seconds…in the Pollyanna trench.
Here’s one you’ve certainly heard before. Cite?
At least I got the Mac right.
Nightwatch Trailer, your spoilered bit (which I was aware of) is the reason I prefer the film to the book, and incidentally the reason I worded the thread title as I did. Not that I’ve read the book or anything (but such minor considerations have never stopped me in the past), but I think the ending is perfect. This story does not merit a “happy ending”. An ambiguous one, yes.
I’m not sure which bit you would like me to cite. I think the movie is excellent, however it is true that Kubrick had it withdrawn from circulation in the UK, although it sounds like there were a bunch of reasons for that. I’m not saying the movie does make Alex a hero; I think it says what Nightwatch Trailer says it does, however I can understand if perhaps not everybody saw it that way. As far as “cold” goes, I like Kubrick’s movies but I think that’s an apt description.
I didn’t see it like this. The way I saw it, Alexander was a nasty little creep, who had a very poor relationship with his wife before she was raped by Alex. He represents the classic (hypocritical) liberal, the writer who supports worthy and trendy causes, and is revealed as a coward and a fake when it comes to the crunch, when he’s tested in the crucible. Given that Burgess and/or Kubrick presumably felt that homosexuality was not a choice, there’s a strong case too for arguing that his marriage was a sham (the horrid coldness and hollowness of the avant-garde decor and furnishings, as well as their childlessness, suggest an emptiness in relationship that he (they?) attempts to compensate by style). The triumph indeed of style over substance could be a metaphor for his life. His relationship with Julian (the gay body builder) is equally empty, which would support my interpretation.
Marley, I meant to challenge your asssertion that Kubrick later regretted the movie. The reason that the movie was withdrawn from circulation in 1973 had I thought more to do with the fact that there had been copycat murders, as well as his annoyance that the film had been given an X rating.
Incidentally, I don’t find it that cold a movie. Just chilling, as in thought-provoking, and far from sanguine about human beings. It made me treasure life more, at the same time that it made One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest seem almost shallow, and too packaged. I don’t think a cold, as in “emotionless”, film would have that effect.
I got my info there from IMDb, and they were not totally clear on this point. They did say that Kubrick received death threats over the movie and that that was one reason, but they also say he withdrew it because of ‘criticism’ and didn’t allow it to be rereleased during the remainder of his lifetime. They didn’t mention any copycat murders, though that’d be another good reason.
“Because of the copy-cat violence that the film was blamed for, Kubrick withdrew it from circulation in Britain about a year after its release. [Shortly after the ban was instituted, a 17-year old Dutch girl was raped in 1973 in Lancashire, at the hands of men singing Singing in the Rain. And a 16-year-old boy had beaten a younger child while wearing Alex’s uniform of white overalls, black bowler hat and combat boots. Both were considered ‘proof’, after the fact, that the film had an influential effect on violence in society.] In preparation for a new 1972 release for US audiences, Kubrick replaced about 30 seconds of footage to get an R-rating, as opposed to the X-rating that the MPAA initially assigned to it. (The replacement footage was for two scenes: the high-speed orgy scene in Alex’s bedroom, and the rape scene projected at the Ludovico Medical Center.) In the spring of 2000, an uncut version of the film was re-released to British screens.”
So, violence not murders, but if Kubrick regretted the movie, I’d be very surprised. I haven’t seen all of his 20-odd films, but this is by far and away the best of those I have seen.
I’m not trying to say he thought he’d made the movie poorly. He was so painstaking in his filming style that I doubt he ever left anything in a movie if he didn’t like it. I have seen most of his movies (all of the major ones save Barry Lyndon) and I do think Clockwork is among the best.
To me it’s really telling that the whole process of making CO - from first photography to release - took only a shade over a year. Quite possibly Kubrick’s quickest, and almost certainly “pro rata”, I would think. This suggests the fellow got in the zone and just went with the flow.
I never thought of Alexander’s marriage being empty. He loved his wife very much which is why her death drove him to madness. Still, I don’t think he was unwitttingly used by the political opposition as much as he enthusiastically took his opportunity for revenge in service to his political views. Him & Julian (btw- that’s the body of Darth Vader- David Prowse) gay? I don’t think so, tho Julian’s attire might suggest that.
Then again, I’m not totally sold (tho I see more justification) on the idea that Mr. Deltoid is making gay moves on Alex.
Btw, I’ve maintained since seeing the film in college around 1982 that Alex really IS cured at the film’s end- cured of the programming & cured of the infantile violent impulses. He finally does have free will to choose & but how he will choose is quite ambiguous.
Bit of trivia- the female singer of the 9th at the Milkbar now goes by her married name of Caryl Matrisciana. She’s an evangelical Christian anti-NewAge writer & speaker.
Julian is not a character in the book. Alexander is not crippled there and does not require a helper. I see Julian’s “gay appearance” in the film simply as part of Kubrick’s visual stylization, not as a comment on Alexander’s character. Of course, the real reason for his presence is to allow Kubrick to frame that brilliant echo of Alexander’s first scene in the movie. (In the book, Alexander simply opens the door to Alex himself.)
Yes, as you know, I was careful to refer throughout to Kubrick’s CO because it was inevitable that in teh transition to celluloid a lot of changes would occur. But my point remains: Alexander is the nastiest piece of work in the book (the scene where he is shown from above manically turning up the volume on Ludwig Van’s 9th to force Alex to top himself clinches this for me - there’s more than just revenge driving him). The whole state is rotten. Not just the hooligans, not just the Police, not just the government, but the liberals (the good guys) as well. Could you describe/explain the “framing echo” point?
FriarTed, I can’t agree with your conclusion about the film’s (not book’s)conclusion at all. Rather than being cured (why, the whole notion of cure is problematic, anyway - what Alex needs, what that world needs is healing, “wholing”), ALex is deprogrammed. He simply reverts to his previous life. Free will doesn’t come into it - that is the truly frightening thing. As he accepts his dinner in bitesize chunks from the politician in an incredibly drawn out scene (Kubrick’s trying to say something of importance here), he apes childlikeness. He knows the govt. need him, he’s in alliance with the powerful. He likes that. He now has license to be as baby-monsterish as he likes. Opening his mouth wide like a nestling receiving a worm from its mother, or giving a silly grinning thumbs-up to the press corps, are signs not of remorse, but of triumphalism.
Ditto. I’ve found every Kubrick movie that I’ve seen to be outrageously ponderous and dull. Clockwork was no exception. In fact, it was worse, since Clockwork had been so hyped up for me.
I’ve only seen the movie once, and it was awhile ago, so I may be misunderstanding something. This Alexander you are discussing is also the writer, correct? The one whose wife was raped and later committed suicide because of the events of the night?
I’m serious in not remembering for sure; I have to admit to being slightly stunned that if it’s the same guy, you would call him a “nasty piece of work” and suggest that there is something more behind it then the fact that the guy was savagely beaten, his wife brutally raped while he watched, in his own home, by the guy he later drove to jump out of the window.
I can understand your being stunned, but that was my response to the film. Incidentally, there is no evidence that Mrs A committed suicide. Like much else, this is left ambiguous and unexplained. She was “a victim of the modern age” according to Alexander in response to Alex asking whether his wife is “away”:
“She was very badly raped, you see. We were assaulted by a gang of vicious young hoodlums in this house, in this very room you are sitting in now. I was left a helpless cripple, but for her, the agony was too great. The doctors said it was pneumonia because it happened some months later during a flu epidemic. The doctors told me it was pneumonia but I knew what it was. A victim of the modern age - poor, poor girl. (He wheels his chair closer to Alex) And now, you, another victim of the modern age, but you can be helped.”
“A victim of the modern age” raises very interesting questions of its own about responsibility, free will, denial and displacement.
I don’t know if Stanley Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” has all that much in common with Anthony Burgess’s book, with or without the last chapter. Burgess didn’t carp about it much because, after all was said and done, Kubrick’s film had made his fortune (Stephen King was in much better financial shape and could be more critical of Kubrick’s adaptation of “The Shining”). Also, from what everyone who knew him said, Burgess was a very generous person.
Burgess made the ultimate generosity as an author when he used the worst thing that had happened to him: the assault (but not rape) of his wife in England during WWII, and his frustraton at being pinned down, not by droogs in the same room but by the His Majesty’s Army on Malta, who would not permit him to return home to see her after the assault. But Burgess made the one who committed this act in his book the sympathetic character - a deeply, criminally flawed human being but one nonetheless entitled to the right of free will. This was thrown out by Kubrick, since there’s not much place for free will in Kubrick’s movies. Helpless French soldiers, helpless astronauts, helpless horny doctors, etc. abound.
From his description of his marriage, Burgess did love his wife deeply, despite their mutual infidelities and the alcoholism that finally killed her. Despite Paul Theroux’s revalation of Burgess’s bisexuality in “My Other Life,” no other source can be found of this possible motivation for Burgess or his alter ego (in fact, a lot of Burgess friends & fans were angry at Theroux; not for portraying Burgess as bi, but, totally uncharacteristic, as a mean-spirited dinner guest!)