Definitely one of those movies that's hard to "get" the first time around. I didn't really understand the whole point of it until the end. Reading some stuff online helped, though.

All in all, I thought it was fantastic. I do love my Kubrick.


Thoughts?

My seventh favorite film of all time. Kubrick was a fucking genius, A Clockwork Orange, the novel, was fucking genius, and McDowell's performance is amazing.

And actually, I loved it right away. The first time I saw it my mouth was hanging wide open pretty much the whole time.

Oh yeah. I loved it the whole time I was watching it. But I didn't understand what was going on until the end. It never clicked for some reason.

what do you mean you didn't know what was going on?

what do you think went on?

I think for some reason I thought the story was different and I didn't give up on that for a long while or something. It's not nearly as complicated now that I think about it.

what do you think went on?

Yeah it's a good movie, I need to watch it again. I forget what happened at the very end exactly?

For some reason I thought that Alex wasn't the narrator. That threw me off greatly because I was totally expecting some other character to show up.

The nearing-fascist government retunes Alex's brain once again so that he's like he was at the beginning and merely a puppet of the state. He thinks he's cured, but he's still a clockwork orange (a mechanical man).

read the book



or at least read the recently unearthed last chapter which was not part of the film

Yeah. That chapter was taken out of the American prints of the book after the film's release.

The book is just about equally as good as the film, I'd say. It's my favorite book.

Nadsat is brilliant.

And the "film-viddying" portion of the book is a disturbing, visceral experience.

no, it wasn't in the american prints before either. And it isn't recently unearthed, it was in the international prints from the beginning. It's also lame.

No.

What's the last chapter about?

No kidding, I watched this the same night you did. I just bought it on special edition DVD, so I sat down and actually allowed myself the time to watch a movie. This is one of my favorite movies, so it was great to have a chance to see it again. It's a very neat film, and one of the most well-directed movies any of us will ever see. I love the story itself anyway, but Kubrick's madman visual presentation is mind-boggling. All of the little techniques he used simply added to the film's flavor; the fast motion orgy scene, the short shots in the scenes of violence, the close-ups during the film-viddy scenes... It was all genius.

I have not yet read the book, but I believe I read in an article that the ending that was taken out was where Alex was actually cured. That's a very vague memory anyway, so perhaps it's not right. I remember well reading that one of the impulses Burgess had for writing this book was that during WWII, he was in a powerless position while he wife got raped by members of the army, and got pregnant because of it, and later had a miscarriage. That is a severely difficult situation to experience, but he certainly handled his anguish in an interesting, and hopefully somewhat therapeutic, way.

This is a fantastic, brilliant work of film. I don't think it will ever lose that mad appeal it possesses.

Definitely no.

I got to watch it in my psych class back when i went to college and gave a damn about my future.

yes, it's lame. It's about Alex's transformation. It's a final chapter at the end of the book so Alex can be good again. I think what Kubrick said was that it was "unconvincing and not in the spirit of the rest of the book." Something like that. And he was right.

Alright, then I read correctly. I've never read the book, but I think the end they used for the film probably fit better than an actual transformation. I don't think anyone wanted Alex to turn into the good guy. Besides, if the book is anything like the movie, didn't we have to watch Alex suffer and drown in sorrow the whole time he was "good"? And another thing: he narrated, and he spoke as the bad guy, he would say what he wanted to do to women, how he wanted to kill bums, etc. If he had actually transformed, he probably would not have said that the one thing he hates is bums singing on the street. I know he was just narrating and was saying how he felt in certain situations, but there were parts where he generalized, and the whole tone of his voice and his language was almost demonic. Perhaps that's just what I got from the film. I understand how that ending would detach itself from the whole spirit of the rest of the production and story, though, and I think that at least for the film, it was better left out.

I felt the same way at the end of "Gone With the Wind." (I know, such similar films...). Margaret Mitchell ended her book with Scarlett wiping the tears of remorse after Rhett (rightfully) left her, and deciding to return to Tara, saying, "After all, tomorrow is another day!" In the book, I thought it was kind of silly, but not a bad ending. However, in the movie, I thought it ridiculous for the creators to end the film the way they did. They ended it with Scarlett suddenly leaving Rhett out of her mind and saying, "After all, tomorrow is another day!" What they should have done was filmed Clark Gable saying, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn," and then watched him walk away, and ended it! When I watch the movie, I don't even watch that part anymore. I just stop it right before they shoot to Scarlett's teary face. If you watch it, the ending would have been so much better for the movie if they had ended where Rhett departs with that brilliant line. Why the heck did they have to continue with her? Oh, it's so upsetting!

I think "Clockwork Orange" ended where it should have ended. I don't think you could make that film any better than it was made so many years ago, with any other director, with any other cast. I think Kubrick made a wise decision, as he did with every aspect of the entire film.