"A Clockwork Orange" last night
Discussion
Didn't see this was on till late so only saw it from where Alex (Malcolm McDowell) arrives at Prison onwards.
I had never seen the film before and from what I did see it was a really terrible film, no wonder Stanley Kubrick wanted it pulled. Not for violent content but because I'm sure he was just embarassed to be associated with it. Forget the deeper meanings of it, it was just unbelievably poorly made, almost up to the standard of Eyes Wide Shut.
I had never seen the film before and from what I did see it was a really terrible film, no wonder Stanley Kubrick wanted it pulled. Not for violent content but because I'm sure he was just embarassed to be associated with it. Forget the deeper meanings of it, it was just unbelievably poorly made, almost up to the standard of Eyes Wide Shut.
FourWheelDrift said:
Didn't see this was on till late so only saw it from where Alex (Malcolm McDowell) arrives at Prison onwards.
I had never seen the film before and from what I did see it was a really terrible film, no wonder Stanley Kubrick wanted it pulled. Not for violent content but because I'm sure he was just embarassed to be associated with it. Forget the deeper meanings of it, it was just unbelievably poorly made, almost up to the standard of Eyes Wide Shut.
To be fair alot of the movies from the same time-also look wrong to us now.
Yep, Clockwork Orange doesnt necessarily stand up today. It might have had an impact 30 years ago, but its somewhat diminished now and is a dated sample of extreme film making of the era.
To be honest it wasnt that bad - yes there are some decidedly nasty parts (rape and murder of course), but the book is MUCH worse. Its all a case of mass-hysteria whipped up by the media of the time. Copy cat murders and beatings.... yeah right. Even now, the links between violence and TV / films is pretty tenuous, and its 30 years worth of research later!!!
As an example of the era, it is still good. The design, the imagry and the style all have a part to play with regards to art history. However, had this film not been banned by the film maker and the board of censors (IIRC?) then it is likely it would have been a mere footnote of the times.....
To be honest it wasnt that bad - yes there are some decidedly nasty parts (rape and murder of course), but the book is MUCH worse. Its all a case of mass-hysteria whipped up by the media of the time. Copy cat murders and beatings.... yeah right. Even now, the links between violence and TV / films is pretty tenuous, and its 30 years worth of research later!!!
As an example of the era, it is still good. The design, the imagry and the style all have a part to play with regards to art history. However, had this film not been banned by the film maker and the board of censors (IIRC?) then it is likely it would have been a mere footnote of the times.....
First 20 minutes and the last 10 minutes are worth a look but the book gets the point across far better than the 2 hours filling in the middle.
Mcdowell's acting is of astonishing quality. The look he gives his parole officer after he spits in his face conveys sheer hatred. Quite astounding given that he doesnt move anything other than his eyes.
On the whole its a very very significant part of movie history in my mind, it challenged just about every boundary at the time and made a political statement but quite subtley.
If? is another Mcdowell classic and most definately worth look.
Mcdowell's acting is of astonishing quality. The look he gives his parole officer after he spits in his face conveys sheer hatred. Quite astounding given that he doesnt move anything other than his eyes.
On the whole its a very very significant part of movie history in my mind, it challenged just about every boundary at the time and made a political statement but quite subtley.
If? is another Mcdowell classic and most definately worth look.
Well you know Kubrick had it withdrawn from cinemas at the time, apparently hearing that folk weren't best pleased with it's violent content. Some might say that he realised it was a bit of a turkey and that he may be in for some stick. When you compare it to his other 'epics' it certainly does feel turgid and awkward, lacking some resolution.
I read the novel for my A level english course, and enjoyed it, but as someone has said the book itself is far more extreme. As an example, Alex kicks to death a man in the prison cell, which is cut from the film. This is pretty stupid, as the whole point of the novel is to criticise an overbearing political system, and the second murder can be seen as proof that traditional prison systems don't work.While the film is good i hate the way in which it flits around the plot pretty crudely, although there are some fairly iconic scenes.
Stanley wanted it pulled because of the perceived influence it would have on the rotten core that Anthony Burgess had so vividly identified. Malcom McDowell's (chilling)performance was as good as it gets. The book and subsequent film were simply ahead of their time. Just look around 'your world' today. Burgess was a visionary.
Yep he pulled it because:
People were turning up to football matches in bowler hats and jock straps.
A load of Dutch kids raped a girl whilst singing 'Singing in the rain'
A load of kids up North beat the shit of a tramp
and he and his family recieved death threats.
The little bit by Tim Roth at the start was really good I thought.
People were turning up to football matches in bowler hats and jock straps.
A load of Dutch kids raped a girl whilst singing 'Singing in the rain'
A load of kids up North beat the shit of a tramp
and he and his family recieved death threats.
The little bit by Tim Roth at the start was really good I thought.
number 46 said:
I thought he had it withdrawn because of threats to him and his family. It does seem a little slow now, but thats because we all have attention spans of a newt !!!
Press Talk: he realised what effect 'the story' would have on the impressionable feckless warrior-like underbelly that dwell just beneath society's surface. Burgess was ahead of the game, and Stanley couldn't quite maintain focus on the main protagonists motives in the same way the book could.
Its a great film, and people often place too much emphasis on the violent aspects.
www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html
www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html
parrot of doom said:
Its a great film, and people often place too much emphasis on the violent aspects.
www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html
was aware it was on and was tempted to watch it but i avoided it.
maybe i should have forced myself to re-watch it but i could only recall that i found it very depressing last time i saw it a few years ago - and not depressing in a thought provoking, profound way.
maybe that's why i also haven't seen eastenders in some 4yrs.
give me "if" anytime for films of that general era ....
discuss.
;-)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff