- Jun 10, 2003
- Real Name
- Josh Steinberg
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.
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.
McDowell says on the commentary that he always thought of the film as a black comedy. I fail to see anything remotely humorous about that segment especially- a couple in their own home, bothering nobody, and a gang of reckless youth slither their way into the home, and commit heinous acts of violence on the couple. To me, this is terrifying, not funny. I still think of the film as brilliant though.I was an usher in San Diego at the Valley Circle theater where Clockwork Orange played for 13 weeks. I must have watched it 100 times. The violence was too stylized to bother me in 1972, as opposed to Straw Dogs. The entire theater staff learned and danced the Singing' in the Rain sequence. It was great fun for both the male and female staff. I have fond memories ...I was 20. BTW the audience always laughed and no one ever walked out..
In Straw Dogs it was terrifying and unsettling, because it was realistic. Clockwork Orange was for me like a Roadrunner cartoon.McDowell says on the commentary that he always thought of the film as a black comedy. I fail to see anything remotely humorous about that segment especially- a couple in their own home, bothering nobody, and a gang of reckless youth slither their way into the home, and commit heinous acts of violence on the couple. To me, this is terrifying, not funny. I still think of the film as brilliant though.
The classical music pieces that accompany the film are great- maybe the strong suit of the film, and I’m not a fan of that type of music. I have the soundtrack on CD.I saw it when it opened at the Warner cinema Leicester Square, & there were people walking out, but I think they'd gone in just to walk out (the same with The Devils). Whatever you think of it, it is a brilliant piece of film-making. I went off it a bit & haven't seen it in years, I'll have to give it another go.
The film changed my life quite a bit! I bought the soundtrack LP & loved the synthesizer tracks, & noticed it was by Walter Carlos (now Wendy) & there was a couple of classical albums by this artist, Switched-On Bach & The Well-Tempered Synthesizer, full of classical stuff, well I bought them & loved them, & they sort of flipped my brain over to classical (never the case before). Within six months I was taking Cello lessons (I was terrible), & all these years later, classical music is very important to me, from Lully/Purcell to Shostakovich/Bliss. So thank you Stanley.
It's the same Blu-ray as 2011. Read the Blu-ray discussion starting with this post.So, can I assume that the Blu-ray that comes with this set also is derived from the same master as the UHD? I mean they would not throw the old transfer on a Blu-ray and include it in this set, right?
Sorry if this has already been answered I only skimmed this thread. Love this film though!
Unlike you, however, I don't think he offers a definitive resolution to the dilemma. Burgess' final chapter suggests that Alex--and, by extension, mankind--will eventually redeem himself if allowed the choice, but Kubrick does not offer that easy out. Like most great artists, he asks the audience to converse with the work and reach their own conclusions.
They did the same thing with Full Metal Jacket, but The Shining and 2001 have a blu-rays from the new masters.
Whatever you think of it, it is a brilliant piece of film-making. I went off it a bit & haven't seen it in years, I'll have to give it another go.
Yes, I find it odd they would do this unless they are planning to release these on Blu-ray later. I mean, why include the blu in the set at all if it is the same old transfer.
Guys, you're revealing significant spoilers for those that have never seen this film.
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.
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.
I was an usher in San Diego at the Valley Circle theater where Clockwork Orange played for 13 weeks. I must have watched it 100 times. The violence was too stylized to bother me in 1972, as opposed to Straw Dogs. The entire theater staff learned and danced the Singing' in the Rain sequence. It was great fun for both the male and female staff. I have fond memories ...I was 20. BTW the audience always laughed and no one ever walked out..