[Travis Hedger]

HDNet was showing this movie so I told my HD Tivo to record it.

I can now say with confidence that I know why you never see this movie on regular TV.

It's rather disturbing but strangely fascinating.

One thing I don't understand at the end was the conversation at the end. Wasn't that the minister that was cutting the deal with him? I thought he was all for the reformation treatment.

I thought the musical score was rather good as well. I found myself listening to the music as much as I was watching the film.

[Walter Kittel]

Well, the minister was a proponent of the Ludovico treatement until the public backlash against the state sanctioned aversion therapy due to Little Alex's attempted suicide. He then abruptly changed positions to curry favor with the electorate.

Yes, the music is brilliant. This film, many many years ago, served as my introduction to Rossini; with the Thieving Magpie being one of my favorite pieces in the film.

- Walter.

[Seth Paxton]

In a more cliched fashion my fav piece is the 9th. The film helped hook me into it even more and it became my favorite of Beethoven's work.


The film is perhaps the most "Kubrick" of all his films based on visual style, IMO.

As Walter points out the end (the whole film actually) is a criticism of the state, especially in regards to individual's rights. After all, Alex is the protagonist and it is he who we are supporting, even if we dislike him in his most brutal moments. Similar to Eyes Wide Shut, CO features a character revisiting similar scenes, events and characters from a new outlook, pointing out parallels or flaws.

For example, in EWS a kindly hooker with a heart of gold captures Cruise's interest, but when he revisits her later he finds out that he has narrowly avoided being exposed to HIV with her which spoils his image of her as an inviting sexual opportunity (which happens over and over, rogue sexual encounters take on an uglier form on revisit starting at the party).

In CO every person that Alex preyed upon comes back to prey upon him with equal conviction. It doesn't justify Alex's actions, but it does point out that things aren't as B&W as they appear in the first 3rd of the film. Getting rid of evil isn't as easy as curing people like Alex, and is such a cure even right?

In the end both the state and the church are exposed as insincere institutions that care more about maintaining power over the people than in solving the real issues. In other words, they are Alex too.

[Lew Crippen]

Quote:

Yes, the music is brilliant. This

Can you still view and listen to Singin’ in the Rain the same way?

[Walter Kittel]

You make a good point Lew. The fact that my associations with Singin' In The Rain were indelibly and irrevocably altered by this film is one aspect of this work that I've carried with me since my initial viewing over 20 years ago. Kubrick's ability to make a protagonist out of a character as despicable as Alex is another aspect of the film that has never failed to impress me.

But the most intriguing theme of the film, for me, is the philosophical question of whether or not good ( and by extension evil ) can exist without free will and the theological implications of this question.

- Walter.

[Lew Crippen]

That scene, repellent though it is, is one that I can call up in my mind’s eye at any time.

Perhaps we need a thread dedicated to the issues of the movie—there was the beginnings of a discussion in antoher thread somewhere. Personally I’m not terribly concerned that Burgess was disappointed (actuly did not like) with the movie. After all Kubrick used the initial ending of the novel. And besidesm he is making a somewhat different (IMO, of course) point.

[LanieParker]

I enjoyed this film when I first saw it (highschool), but after viewing it again as an adult, it's not a movie I would choose to ever watch again.

[MatthewLouwrens]

Quote:

After all Kubrick used the initial ending of the novel.

Nope. The Burgess novel was concieved of with 21 chapters (21 being the age of adulthood), divided into three groups of 7 chapters (give me a child until the age of 7, I'll give you the man.)

The American version cut the 21st chapter, Kubrick read that version, and made the film. He didn't know about the existence of the final chapter until the film was completed.

But it's not much of a loss. The final chapter seems to almost dismiss everything Alex goes through as a phase he grow out of. It's a bizarre redemption for Alex that is completely unwarranted by the previous chapters.

Perhaps I could have bought it had Burgess developed the story further - perhaps another seven chapter section - so that we could see the process by which Alex changed. But, having chosen this particular structure, Burgess was committed, and thus the novel's ending seems more like an absurd happy ending. Kubrick's ending, whether deliberate or accidental, was much more appropriate.

[L. Anton Dencklau]

hmmm. You know, really, with all we know about Kubrick's obsessive ways...

Perhaps "I only knew about the American version of the novel" is a convenient excuse for him not wanting to use the last chapter in the film.

I'm not so sure that he wasn't aware of the different versions.

[MatthewLouwrens]

Do you know, it's like a lightbulb went on, and suddenly I'm starting to question everything I know about ACO. That makes sense. Everything I have read says that he didn't know about the ending, but you're right, it would be surprising for Kubrick to not know about it. Especially since he was living in the UK at the time, and it was the US that had the final chapter cut.

Especially since the story about Kubrick not knowing came, from memory, from Burgess talking about how he told Kubrick about the ending. Perhaps it was just Kubrick trying to appease an angry author. Who knows.