UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ A Clockwork Orange -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Kyle_D]

Moe specifically Amazon issues, but I'd be surprised if most titles aren't being partially produced right now. Best Buy appears to be slated to have them in store tomorrow.

It's not available at any of my local Best Buys in Chicago, although there's a copy in stock at a store 23 miles away. Fortunately, I was able to place an online order through the Best Buy website that is scheduled to be delivered Thursday. This seems to be the new normal.

 

[cineMANIAC]

Yeah, Best Buy notified me of a delay with my copy. Not a big deal, except I ended up cancelling an order at BB last time there was a delay because the days were going by without any updates. I just got tired of waiting. Gonna let this one ship whenever it ships. I've got plenty of stuff to get through.

 

[JPCinema]

I have A Clockwork Orange on iTunes in HD. I had to purchase the new 4K version separately . A first for iTunes.

 

[Neil S. Bulk]

I have A Clockwork Orange on iTunes in HD. I had to purchase the new 4K version separately . A first for iTunes.

There was a similar screw up with Willy Wonka a few months ago. It eventually got sorted out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I have A Clockwork Orange on iTunes in HD. I had to purchase the new 4K version separately . A first for iTunes.

That's a game changer!

 

[JPCinema]

That's a game changer!

It sure is!!!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I have A Clockwork Orange on iTunes in HD. I had to purchase the new 4K version separately . A first for iTunes.

There was a similar screw up with Willy Wonka a few months ago. It eventually got sorted out.

Hopefully, they fix this same as for Willy Wonka... or Crawdaddy will tire of me complaining about it again, LOL.

People might need to complain directly to iTunes support about it though, if nothing's fixed after a week or so perhaps... as that's what I did for Willy Wonka, which at least coincided w/ when they fixed the issue (after a few weeks of nothing)...

_Man_

 

[Robert Crawford]

This is a spoiler warning as several HTF members are discussing key plot points in detail. If you haven't watched "A Clockwork Orange" beforehand, you shouldn't read this thread any further as your enjoyment level to your first viewing will mostly be compromised by others talking about this movie in great detail.

You have been warned so proceed at your own risk of enjoyment.

Hopefully, they fix this same as for Willy Wonka... or Crawdaddy will tire of me complaining about it again, LOL.

People might need to complain directly to iTunes support about it though, if nothing's fixed after a week or so perhaps... as that's what I did for Willy Wonka, which at least coincided w/ when they fixed the issue (after a few weeks of nothing)...

_Man_

Hell, your iTunes conspiracy theory might be right after all.

 

[JPCinema]

This time I feel that this is the new 4K business model. I still have on the HD Clockwork Orange in my library; they are two separate titles with different artwork.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

This time I feel that this is the new 4K business model. I still have on the HD Clockwork Orange and in my library; they are two separate titles with different artwork.

Yes, that's the conspiracy theory of mine that Crawdaddy's refering.

The exact same thing apparently happened w/ Willy Wonka as well.

They may be testing the waters in this manner, but at least w/ Willy Wonka, they seemed to relent when (at least) some of us complained (enough) directly to iTunes support -- I actually told them I'll change my buying habit if that's the case. Maybe they try this approach a few times before committing to something like this permanently (w/out relenting). Who knows?

But if you don't want them to go down that road, complain and let them know. I'd give it a week or so before doing that...

_Man_

 

[Christian D66]

When I was 15 and first saw ACO I thought it was brilliant. Over the years, I've come to dislike Kubrick's overplaying of all the actors, the peak of his worst instincts and the cheap easy answers as opposed to the novel. Now it's on my rung of Kubrick I never need see again while BARRY LYDON rises to the number three spot.

 

[JoshZ]

This is a spoiler warning as several HTF members are discussing key plot points in detail. If you haven't watched "A Clockwork Orange" beforehand, you shouldn't read this thread any further as your enjoyment level to your first viewing will mostly be compromised by others talking about this movie in great detail.

You have been warned so proceed at your own risk of enjoyment.

the cheap easy answers as opposed to the novel.

As I recall, the movie follows the book pretty closely except for dropping the epilogue chapter (which was also excised from the novel by the American publisher).

I would argue that Burgess' epilogue, in which Alex simply outgrows his psychopathic tendencies and all of his predlictions for violence, brutality, and rape were brushed off as the foibles of youth, is the actual "cheap easy answer," and that the publisher and Kubrick were right to cut it.

 

[lark144]

As I recall, the movie follows the book pretty closely except for dropping the epilogue chapter (which was also excised from the novel by the American publisher).

I would argue that Burgess' epilogue, in which Alex simply outgrows his psychopathic tendencies and all of his predlictions for violence, brutality, and rape were brushed off as the foibles of youth, is the actual "cheap easy answer," and that the publisher and Kubrick were right to cut it.

And I of course, completely disagree.

Because from my perspective, Kubrick's ending is cyclical as well as cynical, and deeply flawed, which renders the entire film, for all its visual brilliance, false and inhuman.

It demonstrates that the human capacity for violence is never sated, that people can't change; and the only way to deal with the violence of gangs is to crush them with even more violence.

Burgess' original ending however, says that people can change; that there is, on this earth, the possibility of hope, and also love. That's not at all a "hollywood ending", but something I have experienced, and believe in. It's also very real, in terms of Burroughs' own experience; that is, what led to the writing of "A Clockwork Orange", the fact that Burroughs was brutally attacked by a teenage gang. According to what I have read, he stayed in touch with those people, and saw that they changed over time. Initially, Burroughs defended Kubrick's vision of "A Clockwork Orange", but then quickly withdrew his support because of the ending.

 

[JoshZ]

And I of course, completely disagree.

Because from my perspective, Kubrick's ending is cyclical as well as cynical, and deeply flawed, which renders the entire film, for all its visual brilliance, false and inhuman.

It demonstrates that the human capacity for violence is never sated, that people can't change; and the only way to deal with the violence of gangs is to crush them with even more violence.

Burgess' original ending however, says that people can change; that there is, on this earth, the possibility of hope, and also love. That's not at all a "hollywood ending", but something I have experienced, and believe in. It's also very real, in terms of Burroughs' own experience; that is, what led to the writing of "A Clockwork Orange", the fact that Burroughs was brutally attacked by a teenage gang. According to what I have read, he stayed in touch with those people, and saw that they changed over time. Initially, Burroughs defended Kubrick's vision of "A Clockwork Orange", but then quickly withdrew his support because of the ending.

It's of course you prerogative to prefer the more hopeful ending. But to me, what that chapter says is: "Oh, those crazy kids with their assault and their home invasions and their constant raping! What're ya gonna do? Boys will be boys! Don't worry, they'll outgrow it when they're older. Everybody does, it's perfectly natural!"

Yes, Kubrick's ending was more cynical, but it was also far more damning of a toxic society that would create monsters like Alex and then pretend to "fix" them without addressing the underlying cause. It had a point, as opposed to Burgess' big shrug of an ending that lets everybody off the hook with the suggestion that everything will work out in the end eventually if you just give it a little time.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don’t think Burgess was suggesting that everything will work out on its own if it’s only given time. I think Burgess was suggesting that forcing people to change was futile, and that the only possibility of change is when it is given an opportunity to grow from within. It doesn’t mean that everyone is automatically redeemable. It takes hard work for an individual to change, and it takes hard work for a society to allow the room for that to happen.

As we’ve seen time and again in real life, telling people what to think doesn’t work. Locking them up and throwing away the key as a sole solution doesn’t work because that addresses the symptoms without treating the cause. Punishment without the opportunity for redemption doesn’t offer incentive for growth. And simply deciding people are irredeemable doesn’t solve anything.

I don’t think Burgess’ ending is nearly as simple or rosy as it’s being made out to be.

 

[lark144]

It's of course you prerogative to prefer the more hopeful ending. But to me, what that chapter says is: "Oh, those crazy kids with their assault and their home invasions and their constant raping! What're ya gonna do? Boys will be boys! Don't worry, they'll outgrow it when they're older. Everybody does, it's perfectly natural!"

Yes, Kubrick's ending was more cynical, but it was also far more damning of a toxic society that would create monsters like Alex and then pretend to "fix" them without addressing the underlying cause. It had a point, as opposed to Burgess' big shrug of an ending that lets everybody off the hook with the suggestion that everything will work out in the end eventually if you just give it a little time.

That may have been Kubrick's intention, to be "damning of a toxic society", but, because of the way the film is structured, edited and shot, with an insistent sense of circularity and repetition, even using reverse angle shots to imply a sense of closure, also reverse angle shots that imply a sameness between the government bureaucrats and Alex, a viewer is faced with a clockwork of escalating violence that never ends.

This is completely different, both in tone as well as philosophy, from the Burgess novel, but has more in common with the machines of mutual destruction seen in "Dr. Strangelove" as well as the original ending of "2001" where the Starchild exploded atomic weapons orbiting the earth, and destroyed humankind. In other words, not so much cynical--though I used that word--as nihilistic, a world view completely without hope, especially in the possibility of tenderness, love or compassion from other human beings. In fact, thinking about it, I would say Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" is not only nihilistic, but mechanistic and inhuman. The people in the film all behave like clockwork, going from one act of violence to another, which escalates throughout the course of the film. There is no possibility of change, let alone feeling or kindness, in any of those characters. They're all automatons of violence.

The Burgess novel, on the other hand, is about human beings, and how we have the possibility, not only for change, but Grace. That happens to be the overriding theme of all of Burgess' work. And when I talk about Grace, I'm not talking about religion, but the possibility of human understanding and transformation. That's not a shrug, nor does it let anybody off the hook. In fact, it's the opposite. If anyone is letting characters off the hook, it's Kubrick. By allowing the film to end with Alex regressing back to unthinking "ultraviolence", Kubrick is saying that we're not responsible for our actions. This is who Alex is, and he can't change. But in fact, he can, and in the novel does.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

By allowing the film to end with Alex regressing back to unthinking "ultraviolence", Kubrick is saying that we're not responsible for our actions.

I’ve never taken it that way.

I do think he’s saying that we cannot force people to change. We can abhor Alex’s actions, we can incarcerate him for crimes against society, we can give him the chance to rehabilitate himself, or we can do none of that. But what we cannot do is force him to change himself; that decision to change has to come from within - and I don’t think Kubrick closes the door on that possibility. Indeed, by showing that his droogs became productive members of society, Kubrick shows it is possible to change one’s ways. The treatment Alex is given may have been intended as rehabilitation, but it’s ultimately proven to be revenge instead. Alex being chemically forced into changing his behavior isn’t real change. Alex is tortured after his treatment and unable to defend himself, which is no more permissible in a civilized society than Alex’s crimes were. By enabling this torture, the state becomes as horrific a monster as Alex himself is. That can not be permissible. As tempting or as sensible or as necessary as it might seem, we cannot become a monster to defeat a monster - I think that is more Kubrick’s point than “Alex can’t help himself and that’s that.” If we are to live in a free society, we must be free to make choices, even if those are the wrong choices - and wrong choices should have consequences, of course - but we cannot cure ourselves of what ails us by brainwashing our citizenry. And if it is true that Alex may be beyond redemption - and that’s a reasonable conclusion to consider when we’re talking about a serial rapist/murderer - we cannot brainwash him and pat ourselves on the back as if that solved the problem.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Guys, you're revealing significant spoilers for those that have never seen this film.

This is a spoiler warning as several HTF members are discussing key plot points in detail. If you haven't watched "A Clockwork Orange" beforehand, you shouldn't read this thread any further as your enjoyment level to your first viewing will mostly be compromised by others talking about this movie in great detail.

You have been warned so proceed at your own risk of enjoyment.

 

[lark144]

I’ve never taken it that way.

I do think he’s saying that we cannot force people to change. We can abhor Alex’s actions, we can incarcerate him for crimes against society, we can give him the chance to rehabilitate himself, or we can do none of that. But what we cannot do is force him to change himself; that decision to change has to come from within - and I don’t think Kubrick closes the door on that possibility. Indeed, by showing that his droogs became productive members of society, Kubrick shows it is possible to change one’s ways. The treatment Alex is given may have been intended as rehabilitation, but it’s ultimately proven to be revenge instead. Alex being chemically forced into changing his behavior isn’t real change. Alex is tortured after his treatment and unable to defend himself, which is no more permissible in a civilized society than Alex’s crimes were. By enabling this torture, the state becomes as horrific a monster as Alex himself is. That can not be permissible. As tempting or as sensible or as necessary as it might seem, we cannot become a monster to defeat a monster - I think that is more Kubrick’s point than “Alex can’t help himself and that’s that.” If we are to live in a free society, we must be free to make choices, even if those are the wrong choices - and wrong choices should have consequences, of course - but we cannot cure ourselves of what ails us by brainwashing our citizenry. And if it is true that Alex may be beyond redemption - and that’s a reasonable conclusion to consider when we’re talking about a serial rapist/murderer - we cannot brainwash him and pat ourselves on the back as if that solved the problem.

It's the circular form of the film that makes me feel that deep in my bones, not so much its content. I find the film brilliant formally and photographically, but also claustrophobic and deeply depressing, because of that formal brilliance. And I've watched it 5 times over 50 years, and still come to the same conclusion. It's possible that's just me, but I'm getting that from the way the images are composed and put together. (And I would have watched it a sixth time, if the Blu-Ray was from the 4k scan, but it's not).

 

[lark144]

Guys, you're revealing significant spoilers for those that have never seen this film.

Sorry. Got so into the discussion of the different endings of novel vs film I forgot there may be some folks here who may not be aware of this.