SHERDOG MOVIE CLUB: Week 102: A Clockwork Orange

[Cubo de Sangre]

I agree that artists would like to inspire passion. I don't think the violence incited by this movie is a passionate inspired response to stimuli. I think it is the result of poor character taking advantage of an opportunity. It is nothing that the perps or Kubrick should be proud of. I personally certainly do not see rape as a passionate act. And randomly beating people and looting isn't passionate in my book either.

I do agree this is a good movie and has sparked a lot of interesting discussion. Much like you, I am able to appreciate a disturbing movie, or recognize a boring movie as excellent (like the most recent Blade Runner). I would usually not choose to rewatch them though. So touche.

The passion in my mind isn't he blame of violence, it's the emotional reaction to the film. Love it or hate it, there's probably passion related to something that helps shape one's reaction here.

I wouldn't say the film is shying back from being graphic in what it shows but more showing it in a certain fashion, I mean something like the assasult of the author and the rape of his wife is pretty high up the list of disturbing cinema scenes for me. I think the intension in the first half of the film is more to show Alex's mindset, the whole film feels like a larger than life psychedelic experience and I think the decision to not show much blood is due to that potentially bringing things down to earth.

Disturbing and graphic aren't always the same. Psycho's shower scene exemplifies this. But if we're counting full-frontal nudity as graphic then sure. But this ain't no Peckinpah flick when it comes to blood-letting.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You could argue that this played into the films general criticism of the excessive inidividualism of the era by actually looking back to its and its roots in 19th century existentialism with someone like Schopenhauer claiming that music(noteble using music that existed by that era and giving a modern connection with the use of electronic interpretations) was the highest form of art. Alex as we meet him is basically an ubermensch pushed entirely towards the selfish and the petty rather than a glorious example to society.

Sorry bro, my college days are behind me.

 

[moreorless87]

I spent my Uni days 20 years ago boring holes in muddy fields so any indepth discussion on philosophy would be lost on me but even with more casual knowledge I think the link is there. Alex to me feels like a merger of 60's counter culture and such a philosophical view, that scene I sposed earlier of him beating his droogs on being a classic example of the latter.

"I viddied that thinking is for the gloopy ones and that the oomny ones use like inspiration and what Bog sends. For now it was lovely music that came to my aid"

Perhaps not a total rejection of existentialism but more pointing out the potential for bastardisation not just by facists but in a current environment. Alex as an ubermensch unburdened by societies previous moral values but still ultimately shaped by his environment into a small minded and selfish person.

You could argue as well the films perhaps more relevant today than it has been for awhile, change "oomny" for "alpha" and "gloopy" for "beta" and it fits quite well.

 

[the muntjac]

I meant that you don't seem to be on board with the idea that while Alex is a sadistic menace, he's not the greater evil in the movie. The grater evil is the attempt to eliminate free will.

Maybe in the book since Alex actually chooses to be morally good by story’s end. Had his free will still been stripped of him, he would have never truly chosen a path of righteousness of his own admission, and not because he wants to avoid the effects of a treatment.

But in the movie, you’re lead to believe he’s going right back to his sinful ways once he has his free will back. Alex and “the system” or “the man” were the evils of the world.

I agree, the politician was self-interested. I wouldn't agree that he didn't do the right thing. The public is clearly the moral authority (outside the prison chaplain of course).

He did the right thing not because of a noble act. He did it because he needed his approval rating up. He doesn’t truly care about Alex. Alex is just a tool to win the public over again.

Is there anything about that Kubrick interview quote that you feel undermines your view on the importance of society as it relates to Alex' sadism?

Not really. Kubrick even lists “the law” as one of the reasons that would stop somebody from becoming Alex, which is a societal construct. Kubrick is saying that people might identify with Alex in a way were they don’t condone his behavior and actions, but they can still find him to be charming or funny, hence an appeal about him. Maybe in some animalistic way can you indentify with his raping and murdering side, and if that’s the case, you should seek help.

Kubrick also refers to Alex as “thoroughly evil”, which I agree with. The guy fantasized about torturing Jesus. Alex was born with evil impulses, and a social structure that turned a blind eye to his evilness - his parents, his counselor, and at the end, the minister - gave him free reign to act on those impulses, which made him thoroughly evil.

 

[MusterX]

I'm coming in a little late on this one. Basically @Cubo de Sangre , @europe1 , and @the muntjac have said most of the things I might think to say and more.

What is the deal with the milk? Is that some sort of latent sperm thing or what are we saying with that? Also, everything is sort of structured with ladders of power. From the government, down to the police, down even to Alex and his crew. Someone at the top is always abusing the underlings. As @europe1 had pointed out, its not the regular world these characters inhabit though. Would it be considered dystopian or something else?

Also, what is the connection with music? Beethoven seems to set Alex off, even when he hears music he might hit his underling in the nuts and cut another ones hand. Why? What is the connection with violence and music here? When I look around I find stuff like this.

Anyway, in the book you will find nadsat-speaking young Alex carrying on about "Ludwig van" and how the music primes him for a malenky bit of the old ultraviolence.

So it gets explained more in the book I guess.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Attempted utopia yields dystopia.

I think Orange is kind of like A Brave New World, but in the infancy of attempted authoritarian control. Freedom of choice and individual expression sacrificed for the greater good of peace and tranquility is the goal, but it produces chaos and anarchy, as gangs of rebellious youths roam the streets at night, and debauchery becomes normal. Maybe ACWO is prelude to ABNW in the sense that the government hasn't yet found a way to brain wash the populace into conformity. We do see experimental techniques used on Alex which may eventually lead to the desired result.

I wonder if Alex's base emotional response to Beethoven is a result of sexual or other kinds of abuses that occurred in his childhood while it played in the background? The movie sure hints at some kind of abusive history.

Great movie. I still need to rewatch it, and I'll hopefully have more to share when I do.

 

[the muntjac]

I'm coming in a little late on this one. Basically @Cubo de Sangre , @europe1 , and @the muntjac have said most of the things I might think to say and more.

What is the deal with the milk? Is that some sort of latent sperm thing or what are we saying with that? Also, everything is sort of structured with ladders of power. From the government, down to the police, down even to Alex and his crew. Someone at the top is always abusing the underlings. As @europe1 had pointed out, its not the regular world these characters inhabit though. Would it be considered dystopian or something else?

Also, what is the connection with music? Beethoven seems to set Alex off, even when he hears music he might hit his underling in the nuts and cut another ones hand. Why? What is the connection with violence and music here? When I look around I find stuff like this.

Anyway, in the book you will find nadsat-speaking young Alex carrying on about "Ludwig van" and how the music primes him for a malenky bit of the old ultraviolence.

So it gets explained more in the book I guess.

Beethoven's music is his fight song. It's the stuff he puts on before playing in the big high school football game to get himself amped up. It used to be his anthem to violence, sex, and mayhem, (which is everything that makes him who he is) then it inadvertently caused him pain because of the Ludovico technique. He lost his will to enjoy it.

 

[moreorless87]

I'm coming in a little late on this one. Basically @Cubo de Sangre , @europe1 , and @the muntjac have said most of the things I might think to say and more.

What is the deal with the milk? Is that some sort of latent sperm thing or what are we saying with that? Also, everything is sort of structured with ladders of power. From the government, down to the police, down even to Alex and his crew. Someone at the top is always abusing the underlings. As @europe1 had pointed out, its not the regular world these characters inhabit though. Would it be considered dystopian or something else?

Also, what is the connection with music? Beethoven seems to set Alex off, even when he hears music he might hit his underling in the nuts and cut another ones hand. Why? What is the connection with violence and music here? When I look around I find stuff like this.

Anyway, in the book you will find nadsat-speaking young Alex carrying on about "Ludwig van" and how the music primes him for a malenky bit of the old ultraviolence.

So it gets explained more in the book I guess.

The milk perhaps again a reffence to female breasts? basically a sexualised drink.

Again I think Beethoven is a quite deliberate choice, its grand Germanic music of the 19th century that I think looks to bring to mind certain existential philosophical ideas(inidivudalism, the will to power) that started in that period. Alex I would argue is exploring the potential negative of those ideas as popularity put forward in that era, arguably pointing out that whilst he's largely free from social constraints his individualism ends up being a product of his environment, cruel, petty and selfish.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Not really. Kubrick even lists “the law” as one of the reasons that would stop somebody from becoming Alex, which is a societal construct. Kubrick is saying that people might identify with Alex in a way were they don’t condone his behavior and actions, but they can still find him to be charming or funny, hence an appeal about him. Maybe in some animalistic way can you indentify with his raping and murdering side, and if that’s the case, you should seek help.

Kubrick also refers to Alex as “thoroughly evil”, which I agree with. The guy fantasized about torturing Jesus. Alex was born with evil impulses, and a social structure that turned a blind eye to his evilness - his parents, his counselor, and at the end, the minister - gave him free reign to act on those impulses, which made him thoroughly evil.

It should if your position is that Alex' wickedness is the product of society.

Blind eye? That would fit the parents some. Other than that the police responded to two of the instances, the counselor arrives after the gang fight to tell Alex he knows he was involved and then physically tries to intimidate him into shaping up. Then of course he goes to prison. Society wasn't condoning the violence. They wanted something done about it. Hence the fundamental moral question of the film.

I'm coming in a little late on this one. Basically @Cubo de Sangre , @europe1 , and @the muntjac have said most of the things I might think to say and more.

What is the deal with the milk? Is that some sort of latent sperm thing or what are we saying with that? Also, everything is sort of structured with ladders of power. From the government, down to the police, down even to Alex and his crew. Someone at the top is always abusing the underlings. As @europe1 had pointed out, its not the regular world these characters inhabit though. Would it be considered dystopian or something else?

Also, what is the connection with music? Beethoven seems to set Alex off, even when he hears music he might hit his underling in the nuts and cut another ones hand. Why? What is the connection with violence and music here? When I look around I find stuff like this.

Anyway, in the book you will find nadsat-speaking young Alex carrying on about "Ludwig van" and how the music primes him for a malenky bit of the old ultraviolence.

So it gets explained more in the book I guess.

To me milk always seemed like a quirky element that didn't have any special meaning. But @moreorless87 makes sense with the sexualized aspect.

As for music, it's his passion. I can relate to that. And with his overall zest for life it stands to reason that his enjoyment for the arts would be over-sized. It is interesting how music motivates his actions and ultimately leads to his downfall. Him putting his appreciation of it before his relationship with Dim starts things off. Then again with the nutsack crack and hand cutting after hearing it emanating from a window. This disciplining is why his droogs set him up. Then of course it's Beethoven that the cat lady smacks him with, and that's presumably why he responded with enough force to kill her. And later it's what inspires him to attempt to snuff it.

 

[Guestx]

I've mentioned before that I tried to watch this movie once in the past and just didn't get into it so I turned it off. I thought I made it about halfway through. Now I realize I only made it about 20 minutes into the film.

Kubrick has always made films that pose significant challenges to interpretation. If someone tells me they have a total understanding of The Shining or 2001, then I'll call them a liar. This film is no different. While many of the film's themes are obvious, in some instances I just wasn't sure what Kubrick was going for.

As with all of Kubrick's movies, it's full of striking imagery, excellent performances, and just great craftmanship all around.

The film raises questions about moral choice. Can we be moral creatures when the option to be immoral has been taken away from us? The interesting thing is that even as the film seems to poke fun at Christianity at times, it's ultimately the Christian priest who raises the more pertinent moral questions and on some level the main thrust of the film seems to come from a Christian perspective. That is, human beings are given a choice between good and evil (as symbolized in the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve) and it is only when we are free to choose either path that our actions can be defined as moral and immoral.

There was also another element of the story that stood out to me, something that I doubt Kubrick intended, but it was a personal meaning I took away from the movie. When Alex's ability to commit violence is taken away from him, he is defenseless against the aggression of others. We see him get his ass kicked by homeless people, by his ex-friends-turned-cops and then later subdued by the writer dude and his bodybuilding henchman. For me, I couldn't help but think about how, here in the US, our Second Amendment rights are constantly under attack. In my view, taking away Alex's ability to defend himself against others was akin to taking away a person's right to bear arms. If you strip them of this right, then they are defenseless against those who are stronger than they are.

Overall watching this film was an interesting experience. I enjoyed it, more or less, but it's not Essential Kubrick to me. It's not a film that I'm going to revisit over and over, like I have with The Shining and 2001 and Full Metal Jacket. I do feel good about finally getting it knocked out though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There was also another element of the story that stood out to me, something that I doubt Kubrick intended, but it was a personal meaning I took away from the movie. When Alex's ability to commit violence is taken away from him, he is defenseless against the aggression of others. We see him get his ass kicked by homeless people, by his ex-friends-turned-cops and then later subdued by the writer dude and his bodybuilding henchman. For me, I couldn't help but think about how, here in the US, our Second Amendment rights are constantly under attack. In my view, taking away Alex's ability to defend himself against others was akin to taking away a person's right to bear arms. If you strip them of this right, then they are defenseless against those who are stronger than they are.

Great observation. You're probably right that it's unintended. More a bi-product of the story needing Alex to suffer such that the scrutiny shifts to the government. It certainly adds to the immorality of their actions.

That's no bodybuilding henchman. That's Darth fucking Vader.

 

[Guestx]

-When the government is concerned about overcrowded jails, which of course is a great expense, they seek methods that will "cure" inmates and deem them to be free to mingle with the rest of society again. Alex endures torture through the scientific process, and his free will is stripped of him. The priest comes to his defense saying that Alex should be able to resist evil because of moral objections, not through just trying to avoid a feeling of pain and sickness which was cast onto him by the treatment. The government has no time to care about ethical dilemmas. All they care about is if the process made him stop wanting to commit acts of violence and rape, which it does, but at the cost of inadvertently making him feel sick and painful when he hears a Beethoven piece, and it also seemed to make him sick at the thought of any kind of sexual act, whether it be forceful or consensual. The Minister doesn't seem to care because he's only worried about his poll approval. Alex is only being used as a tool for the Minister to have something to boast about for the next election.

What I would be interested to see is how something like the Ludovico Technique would go over if a real-life version of it was introduced to society today.

Would it be supported by the majority of people? Or rejected as immoral?

I think it would actually get more support than we might think.

 

[the muntjac]

It should if your position is that Alex' wickedness is the product of society.

I’m not sure how to make my point clearer than I already have. All I would be doing from here on would be repeating myself.

Blind eye? That would fit the parents some. Other than that the police responded to two of the instances, the counselor arrives after the gang fight to tell Alex he knows he was involved and then physically tries to intimidate him into shaping up. Then of course he goes to prison.

Deltoid was never being genuine in his counseling. He never truly cared about Alex’s well-being. He went to go laugh and then spit in his face at the prison.

Society wasn't condoning the violence. They wanted something done about it. Hence the fundamental moral question of the film.

I’m not sure where this is coming from. I never argued that society, as in the general populace, were condoning Alex’s violence.

You seem to think I don’t understand the moral question the film presents about government stripping people of free will, even if it’s someone as ruthless as Alex. I do get it. And I’m not sure why you think acknowledging that Alex being formed by the environment he grew up in somehow takes away from that notion. I’ve already stated he’s inherently evil, and his upbringing and those who were part of it did him no favors. There’s no denying that. Those were details put into the movie by Kubrick himself. It also doesn’t help that by the end of it, he’s let off by a government official much easier than he should have been for murdering a woman, and then given a position with pay all because that same government official wanted to prop him up as a token to save face with the general populace. This same government official is the reason Alex was put through the Ludovico Technique in the first place, all for the sake of cutting costs by reducing the number of inmates in the prison system. I’m not making this up, this is stuff that’s actually spoken and carried through with in the movie. So, once again, the system allows Alex to act on his debauchery.

Yes, the Ludovico technique was never morally a good thing, but it was at first being praised in the press until it got out that Alex tried to kill himself because of the side effects of the technique. The populace learned what it was doing to Alex, and then they blamed the government for condoning it. I haven’t said anything different than that.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

And I’m not sure why you think acknowledging that Alex being formed by the environment he grew up in somehow takes away from that notion.

Pretty simple really. The film contrasts the will of the individual vs. the will of society. It's fine to say that environment helped shape Alex because that's true of us all. What I'm disputing is the idea the Kubrick in any way intended to reduce Alex' culpability in his own actions. Alex takes full ownership himself in the narrative. The Kubrick quote I gave you characterizes him as evil. It's just who he is.

You're welcome to pull whatever you want from art, same as me. I don't think blaming society for 15 year old Alex is a theme here. I could be wrong. If anything that just makes him all the more sympathetic. So either way you wind up in the same place of deciding that free will with bad consequences is better than the alternative.

 

[the muntjac]

What I'm disputing is the idea the Kubrick in any way intended to reduce Alex' culpability in his own actions. Alex takes full ownership himself in the narrative.

Ah, I see what the disconnect is now. You’re thinking because I’m saying that Alex’s environment and those involved in his life having a hand in one form or another not steering him away from his evil impulses, that I’m not casting blame mainly on him. Perhaps I just wasn’t making myself clear, but I’m not looking at this as, “Oh, that poor Alex. It wasn’t his fault. It was the world around him.” No, not at all.

Alex still made the conscious decisions to beat down a homeless man, cripple a writer, rape a woman, attack his own friends, and then kill a lady. We even see that the following day after raping a woman, he goes to the record store and picks up two ladies to bring back to his place for a consensual romp. This further shows that he doesn’t need to rape someone to get his rocks off, but he does it anyway because he’s a sick son of a bitch.

And holy fuck, Julian was Darth Vader?! I never knew that. Man, Alex was fucked the second he walked in that door.

 

[europe1]

A shit this film just has to much ground to cover.

You observation is maybe best summed up in this scene where the bum indicts society at large

This is the sort of observations that makes me think I should have rewatched the movie before typing up that post. Also, that drunk sings quite good, actually.

When the drunk started talking about "men on the moon" I went, "Seeing as this is a Kubrick film, I bet there are a thousand conspiracy theories online about that sentence".


Also to add towards the focus on societal themes, the writer says that his wife was a "victim of the modern age." He doesn't just see her as a victim of some random act of hooliganism, he sees her as a victim of a societal trend and culture.

Pretty much everything I came to say about the film has just been said by you,

-The film presents Alex as a product of society. He lives in a shabby area, and his parents don't seem to instill any real authoritative control over him or aren't bothered to take a real interest in his life. His mom lets him blow off school, and his parents just take his word that he has a night job when he's really out committing crime. He seems to have free control to do whatever he wants without any repercussion from them.

Yeah. I like how his mum just breaks down and starts crying whenever things get stressful -- instead of actually dealing with the problem.

And when he returns from prison -- they offer no assisstance whatsoever. They just want him out of their life and live with Joe instead. The "excuses" they offer are seriously lame. Man Joe must be a swell guy. They must see Joe just as the Vampires saw Stu in What We Do in the Shadows. Remeber Stu!? Ah that was a right old bugger it was. Real horrorshow!

but warnings alone never really stop people from doing the things they do

-His counselor, Mr. Deltoid, realizes he's a troubled youth, but he doesn't actually try to give him any real guidance outside of warning Alex that what he's doing will get him in trouble, something Alex already understands, but warnings alone never really stop people from doing the things they do. Also, Mr. Deltoid is a pervert and sexual harasser himself.

It's funny how Mr Deltoid say's:

Mr. Diltoid "We've been studying the problem for years [teenage violence]. You got a good home. Loving parents. Not to bad of a brain." It's a masterclass example of missing the point, seeing as he and virtually every other authority figure in the film are corrupt or degenerate themselves. Alex is no outliner, he reflects mainstream society pretty well, obsessed with violence and humiliations.

And calling Alex's parents loving is a bit of a stretch.

Yes, I should have added in my original post, that he does seem to be bred with a sadistic nature despite his surroundings, but his surroundings and society aren't helping him any. Maybe with the right guidance and control, he could have been steered away from those impulses, but he was never given a chance.

See here Deer-Man, I think part of the point is that "no one is giving guidence".

When Alex is released from jail -- not a single person wants to help him rehabilitate. Everyone instead just wants to take their vengence on him. This is indicative of how this society thinks. Guidence is just a foregin concept to them, not something they think about. The entire culture is just permeated with violence, even before Alex becomes conditioned.

Had Alex not arrived by accident at the writers house -- he would have undoubtedly succumbed to either the elements of the abuse of strangers. So ironically, meeting the writer (a political enemy of the society and therefore not like them normally) again might have actually saved him.

The priest comes to his defense saying that Alex should be able to resist evil because of moral objections

The Priest has always been a bit of an odd duck for me. Early on, he tells Alex "I know of the urges that can trouble young men deprived of the society of women". In that moment, it's like Kubrick is setting us up for some old fashioned altar-boy buggery, but nothing comes of it, and instead the clergyman actually seems to be the moral heart of the story.

That early line is just such a curveball.

What do you guys think? A Clockwork Orange or The French Connection?

French Connection 8/10 -- a certified great
A Clockwork Orange 9.5/10 -- real horrorshow!

But hey, at least Fiddler on the Roof didn't win

That main prison guard may by my favorite part of the film. His sudden outburst of shouted anger are hilarious.

O-face!

Can't really agree with that. I think it presents Alex as a uniquely sadistic monster and that's just who he is. Through Mr. Deltoid the film says it's not so much his environment as it's just him.

Yes, I should have added in my original post, that he does seem to be bred with a sadistic nature despite his surroundings

The question of Nature vs Nuture is -- of course -- always difficult to assertain in films because we see so little of their lives, and thus do not have the data to assidiously assertain such a question.

However, I would like to point out that Alex is hardly unique in his society. It is just his extremeness and proficiency that sets his actions apart from the rest. Most youths we meet in the film reveal in a bit of the in-out, in-out and the old Ultra-Violence. And as mentioned -- the adults engage in sexual perversities and browbeating violence as well, mirroing the youths. So Alex appears to be very much in-line with the rest of society, save for his intelligence and his musical taste.

Hell, look at the Milk-bar scene. We see plenty of gangs loitering about, and even some people dressed in tuxidos! The entire society seems in on this lifestyle. Gang-life is booming like the motercycle gangs in Mad Max and the culture is delabidated and decadent.

Through Mr. Deltoid the film says it's not so much his environment as it's just him.

Mr Deltoid really doesn't seem to be an authority on the subject of psychology though, considering his many failings, hypocrites and lack of character-perception.

Mr. Deltoid fails to see how the enviorment is very much like Alex, Alex merely being a bit more extreme and cunning.

The mistreatment by Deltoid is the result of Alex already being a criminal

That doesn't make it right or just though. That's still criminal and counter-productive to cure said criminality. And Deltoid does seem to really reveal in getting to mistreat Alex.

What @europe1 was speculating about sexual abuse seems like a stretch. When Deltoid smacked him on the balls there was nothing sexual. Just dominance

Dominance and sexuality tends to go hand-in-hand in these situations, though. And if anything Clockwork Orange shows dominance and sexuality to be very close bed-mates in a society like this.

Thrust me, I know from first han--uhh say remember Stu guys!?

Would it be considered dystopian or something else?

The politician says: "Soon we may need all prisons for political prisoners"

Yup, sounds pretty dystopian to me.

“Oh, that poor Alex. It wasn’t his fault. It was the world around him.” No, not at all.

Man that's one of my pet peeves when people make that assumption.

I will never understand why people assume that you want to take away a person's agency or punishment just because you are talking about the societal effects that shaped said person. The very line of thinking seems foreign and alien to me. It's an attempt at an explanation, not a justification -- the two being very, very much different animals.

To me, it seemed being in jail was the right outcome for Alex. Even though it wasn't stopping him from having fantasies of violence and perverse sexual acts, he was restrained from acting any of those desires out since he was locked up. He was quick to fall in line under the authoritative control of the prison guards and was actually staying out of trouble. Perhaps with some actual guidance, he could have eventually been lead to being a morally good person, but politics got in the way.

 

[Slick_36]

Damn, I've missed Chocolate, Troll Hunter, Once Upon a Time In the West, Pi, Ran, and The Room?! That's a real bummer, but I've meant to watch this movie for years. I've been on a Kurosawa kick lately and craving some good movie discussion.

 

[the muntjac]

The Priest has always been a bit of an odd duck for me. Early on, he tells Alex "I know of the urges that can trouble young men deprived of the society of women". In that moment, it's like Kubrick is setting us up for some old fashioned altar-boy buggery, but nothing comes of it, and instead the clergyman actually seems to be the moral heart of the story.

That early line is just such a curveball.

Yeah, the prison chaplain was the only person seen through the film that actually had genuine good intentions for Alex. He was the only person who seemed to care. Was Kubrick a religious person?

See here Deer-Man, I think part of the point is that "no one is giving guidence".

Yes, exactly. The warning signs were all there for Alex to get thrown in jail one day. Heck, beyond warning signs. He was actually out committing crimes on a routine basis, and Deltoid knew this or at at least greatly assumed it, but he didn't care to actually do anything about it because it's easier to molest young rogue punks who would never turn to the authorities because they are criminals themselves.

Alex's parents just took his word that he had a night job, and that was that. They didn't seem to have any real control over him, and seemed to lack at doling out any real discipline. And like you've pointed out, as soon as Alex was out of the picture, they just replaced him with a new "son", one that was much easier to maintain. They even chose this Joe fella over their own son, and really wanted nothing to do with Alex... That is until news got out about Alex trying to kill himself because of a controversial government experiment, and Alex was being propped up as a shining example of government corruption by the media, and the populace was fawning over him. And gee, look who shows up then - mom and dad. This is why Alex dismisses them. They weren't there for him when he was hitting rock bottom, so he tells them to take a hike when they come around when he's famous.

It's funny how Mr Deltoid say's:

Mr. Diltoid "We've been studying the problem for years [teenage violence]. You got a good home. Loving parents. Not to bad of a brain." It's a masterclass example of missing the point, seeing as he and virtually every other authority figure in the film are corrupt or degenerate themselves. Alex is no outliner, he reflects mainstream society pretty well, obsessed with violence and humiliations.

And calling Alex's parents loving is a bit of a stretch.

Yes.

When Alex is released from jail -- not a single person wants to help him rehabilitate. Everyone instead just wants to take their vengence on him. This is indicative of how this society thinks. Guidence is just a foregin concept to them, not something they think about. The entire culture is just permeated with violence, even before Alex becomes conditioned.

Had Alex not arrived by accident at the writers house -- he would have undoubtedly succumbed to either the elements of the abuse of strangers. So ironically, meeting the writer (a political enemy of the society and therefore not like them normally) again might have actually saved him.

Yes!

The question of Nature vs Nuture is -- of course -- always difficult to assertain in films because we see so little of their lives, and thus do not have the data to assidiously assertain such a question.

However, I would like to point out that Alex is hardly unique in his society. It is just his extremeness and proficiency that sets his actions apart from the rest. Most youths we meet in the film reveal in a bit of the in-out, in-out and the old Ultra-Violence. And as mentioned -- the adults engage in sexual perversities and browbeating violence as well, mirroing the youths. So Alex appears to be very much in-line with the rest of society, save for his intelligence and his musical taste.

YES!

Man that's one of my pet peeves when people make that assumption.

I will never understand why people assume that you want to take away a person's agency or punishment just because you are talking about the societal effects that shaped said person. The very line of thinking seems foreign and alien to me. It's an attempt at an explanation, not a justification -- the two being very, very much different animals.

 

[moreorless87]

It's funny how Mr Deltoid say's:

Mr. Diltoid "We've been studying the problem for years [teenage violence]. You got a good home. Loving parents. Not to bad of a brain." It's a masterclass example of missing the point, seeing as he and virtually every other authority figure in the film are corrupt or degenerate themselves. Alex is no outliner, he reflects mainstream society pretty well, obsessed with violence and humiliations.

The 2011 riots in the UK come to mind for me, the great and the good throwing there hands up at mass looting that's arguably just a reflection of extreme consumerism they push.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Ah, I see what the disconnect is now. You’re thinking because I’m saying that Alex’s environment and those involved in his life having a hand in one form or another not steering him away from his evil impulses, that I’m not casting blame mainly on him. Perhaps I just wasn’t making myself clear, but I’m not looking at this as, “Oh, that poor Alex. It wasn’t his fault. It was the world around him.” No, not at all.

Alex still made the conscious decisions to beat down a homeless man, cripple a writer, rape a woman, attack his own friends, and then kill a lady. We even see that the following day after raping a woman, he goes to the record store and picks up two ladies to bring back to his place for a consensual romp. This further shows that he doesn’t need to rape someone to get his rocks off, but he does it anyway because he’s a sick son of a bitch.

And holy fuck, Julian was Darth Vader?! I never knew that. Man, Alex was fucked the second he walked in that door.

Yeah. To me it seemed you were shifting the blame in a way that distorted the message. I certainly agree environment influenced Alex. I'd disagree that he's a product of it. Sounds like we're not too far off really.

Did you watch that video? The person who posted it commented that heavy breathing was a big part of his role as Darth.

A shit this film just has to much ground to cover.




This is the sort of observations that makes me think I should have rewatched the movie before typing up that post. Also, that drunk sings quite good, actually.

When the drunk started talking about "men on the moon" I went, "Seeing as this is a Kubrick film, I bet there are a thousand conspiracy theories online about that sentence".


Also to add towards the focus on societal themes, the writer says that his wife was a "victim of the modern age." He doesn't just see her as a victim of some random act of hooliganism, he sees her as a victim of a societal trend and culture.

Yeah. I like how his mum just breaks down and starts crying whenever things get stressful -- instead of actually dealing with the problem.

And when he returns from prison -- they offer no assisstance whatsoever. They just want him out of their life and live with Joe instead. The "excuses" they offer are seriously lame. Man Joe must be a swell guy. They must see Joe just as the Vampires saw Stu in What We Do in the Shadows. Remeber Stu!? Ah that was a right old bugger it was. Real horrorshow!

It's funny how Mr Deltoid say's:

Mr. Diltoid "We've been studying the problem for years [teenage violence]. You got a good home. Loving parents. Not to bad of a brain." It's a masterclass example of missing the point, seeing as he and virtually every other authority figure in the film are corrupt or degenerate themselves. Alex is no outliner, he reflects mainstream society pretty well, obsessed with violence and humiliations.

And calling Alex's parents loving is a bit of a stretch.




See here Deer-Man, I think part of the point is that "no one is giving guidence".

When Alex is released from jail -- not a single person wants to help him rehabilitate. Everyone instead just wants to take their vengence on him. This is indicative of how this society thinks. Guidence is just a foregin concept to them, not something they think about. The entire culture is just permeated with violence, even before Alex becomes conditioned.

Had Alex not arrived by accident at the writers house -- he would have undoubtedly succumbed to either the elements of the abuse of strangers. So ironically, meeting the writer (a political enemy of the society and therefore not like them normally) again might have actually saved him.




The Priest has always been a bit of an odd duck for me. Early on, he tells Alex "I know of the urges that can trouble young men deprived of the society of women". In that moment, it's like Kubrick is setting us up for some old fashioned altar-boy buggery, but nothing comes of it, and instead the clergyman actually seems to be the moral heart of the story.

That early line is just such a curveball.




French Connection 8/10 -- a certified great
A Clockwork Orange 9.5/10 -- real horrorshow!

But hey, at least Fiddler on the Roof didn't win




O-face!

The question of Nature vs Nuture is -- of course -- always difficult to assertain in films because we see so little of their lives, and thus do not have the data to assidiously assertain such a question.

However, I would like to point out that Alex is hardly unique in his society. It is just his extremeness and proficiency that sets his actions apart from the rest. Most youths we meet in the film reveal in a bit of the in-out, in-out and the old Ultra-Violence. And as mentioned -- the adults engage in sexual perversities and browbeating violence as well, mirroing the youths. So Alex appears to be very much in-line with the rest of society, save for his intelligence and his musical taste.

Hell, look at the Milk-bar scene. We see plenty of gangs loitering about, and even some people dressed in tuxidos! The entire society seems in on this lifestyle. Gang-life is booming like the motercycle gangs in Mad Max and the culture is delabidated and decadent.



Mr Deltoid really doesn't seem to be an authority on the subject of psychology though, considering his many failings, hypocrites and lack of character-perception.

Mr. Deltoid fails to see how the enviorment is very much like Alex, Alex merely being a bit more extreme and cunning.



That doesn't make it right or just though. That's still criminal and counter-productive to cure said criminality. And Deltoid does seem to really reveal in getting to mistreat Alex.



Dominance and sexuality tends to go hand-in-hand in these situations, though. And if anything Clockwork Orange shows dominance and sexuality to be very close bed-mates in a society like this.

Thrust me, I know from first han--uhh say remember Stu guys!?




The politician says: "Soon we may need all prisons for political prisoners"

Yup, sounds pretty dystopian to me.



Man that's one of my pet peeves when people make that assumption.

I will never understand why people assume that you want to take away a person's agency or punishment just because you are talking about the societal effects that shaped said person. The very line of thinking seems foreign and alien to me. It's an attempt at an explanation, not a justification -- the two being very, very much different animals.

I also very much enjoyed the drunk's singing. Lovely acoustics.

Yeah, the author sees a larger problem in society and appears highly political. Not sure they ever give any reasons for the turmoil and decaying of morals. Is it in response to the government growing fascist or is the fascism a result?

Sure, sexual violence involves dominance. But dominance doesn't necessarily involve sex. I really don't know how you assume Deltoid was sexually abusing kids. Was that in the book and I've forgotten? Without other indicators I'm chalking up that tolchoking of Alex' balls to simple male violence. Same as when Alex grabbed the cop's balls. Nothing sexual about it. Deltoid is clearly not a good dude and clearly not interested in helping Alex.

I hear you on the priest. It did seem like a gay come-on at first, but the priest truly is the moral voice of the film so it makes sense that it was just part of his general concern for Alex. He's kinda the opposite of Deltoid. Somewhere in between is the guard (not there to help him but isn't going to lower himself to commit abuses either). On the far end of the priest I'd put the parents. They care and provide for Alex but offer nothing in terms of guidance.

9.5/10? Was there not enough nudity in this or something?