Modern "horror" movies are either jumpscares, gore, action, or violent for the sake of violent. Clockwork Orange is effective because it's psychological nature
@@justindenney-hall5875 A Clockwork Orange was Rated X when it was first released here in the U. S. in 1971. I remembered that. I was 15 in 1971. I did see it in 1973 and I do believe it was still Rated X at that time.
4:58 Malcom improvised the choice of song and Stanley loved it so rushed through getting the rights to use it, paying $10K - or so he claimed. Many years later, Malcolm was introduced to Gene Kelly at an event and he said nothing and walked away. He assumed it was because he hated the use of it for that scene. Many years later, after Kelly died, Malcom was telling the story at a Hollywood event and was overheard by none other than Gene's widow. She explained that it wasn't because of the usage, it was because he never actually got any payment from Kubrick despite agreeing to the deal.
@@Sgt_Glory Kubrick believed that the film and his artistic vision were all that mattered. He was absolutely dedicated to that vision and seeing it through, and was willing to push himself to his absolute limits and break every rule to achieve it, and if you didn't feel the same way he would treat you like absolute shit. He really was the shadow archetype of the artist, even worse than Hitchcock.
It wasn't Kelly's to sell...Singin in the Rain was a pre-existing song at the time of Kelly's movie, from an earlier musical film not called by the song title.
The body guard is David Prowse, aka Darth Vader. Much of the dialogue has a combination of English and Russian. The soundtrack by Wendy Carlos was revolutionary. The milk is laced with various drugs. The gang’s slang-filled discourse is not dissimilar to what you hear from gangs today; nothing dystopian about it. By rights, today is the future society in the movie. Urban violence is as brutal as anything in this movie. Like today, nobody really cares about the violence until it lands in their neighborhood. And like today, politicians are told to do something and, instead of figuring out why the problem exists, they do something extremely visible and completely cruel or ineffective. I confess to having been known to use ‘gutty-wutts,’ ‘eggy-weggs,’ and ‘appypollyloggies’ in everyday usage.
They did not spot Darth Vader , helper for the wheelchair man , David Prowse . Prison guard , Michael Bates , funny , but Fulton Mackay was mirror image of him as prison guard in Porridge 1974-77 , a prison comedy , bet he took his character from this movie .
The novel had a dictionary in it to translate the slang, which was a mishmash of Russian and other slang. Also, did you notice in the record store that the soundtrack to “2001 A Space Odyssey” was displayed? Also, the look on Simone’s face when George mentioned the cat lady was like looking at her future was PERFECT. Great reaction to a great film.
I only found that dictionary when I had finished reading it. But I think it's even harder to keep up with the slang in the movie. While reading, you can pause and try to figure out the meaning.
I HAD to have the glossary at hand when I read it. A lot of things are repeated, so you get those faster, but otherwise, yes, not easy to just breeze right through......
The title, "A Clockwork Orange", refers to the fact that when his ability to choose between good and evil was taken away, Alex became no different from a wind-up toy -- a clockwork orange. Good is not good unless the choice of evil is not made.
It comes from an old British colloquialism "He's as queer as a clockwork orange" (Queer in the meaning of 'odd' not referencing sexuality.) As an orange has no moving parts, making it clockwork wouldn't really do anything.
@@ItApproaches Technically, that is true: good and evil, in the sense we understand them, are human constructions; actions just "are" and then can be framed under whatever context we want to apply to them. But, for the sake of the meaning of the film, let's stick to some ideas: first, that we work only with human elements; second, that good and evil are unavoidable concepts (since humans like to classify everything) and three, we forget a bit of different moral compasses: good is the supreme good (don't kill, don't harm, don't abuse, don't betray... don't do unto others what you won't like to do unto you) and evil is the supreme evil (kill, harm, abuse, betray... do to others whatever that brings you joy). Under that setting... is there really some value if a person has no other choice to do "good"? Because even the saying "don't do unto others what you wouldn't like to be done to you" frames the concept of good on the person's understanding of evil, that the things are evil if you wouldn't like them done to you (self preservation). If a person doesn't have the choice to aim for the good, and is rather forced to always do the good... what's the value of its actions? Is there even free will in a world of pure goodness? The answer would be: no. Any good a person elects to make is worthy (or can be measured) based on the evil it could have done instead. If there are no stakes to actually do evil... being good is kind of hollow. Even assuming "good" and "evil" don't exist and are just a matter of opinion: you still expect some degree of contention or comprehension from different individuals at different points in time (your parents, your lovers or significant others, idols, teachers, friends, enemies...). You expect them at one point to show some restrain or agreement that benefits you (individually) or benefits the collective you belong to (basically, you expect them to be "good"), even when they could have every argument (and every right) to make a choice in a different way. The conclusion then is that "good" and "bad" (while not carved in stone) exist, since indivudals praise some general behavior above other; and that behavior is worth of admiration precisely because the other individual has every opportunity to choose a different path; even if its opinions are not the same as yours (some indviduals even act against their personal opinions for the benefit of others). So, Clay's argument still stands: being able to choose between "good" and "bad" is what makes being good worthy of admiration. Forcing people to think twice to be good prevents we kill each other. And removing the ability to make the choice (and just "be" good) nullifies the value because it erases the conflict (and even erases the idea that opinions create good and evil; what kind of opinions you can create if all think in only one specific given way?).
@@ThreadBomb In the sense that a prison sentence limits your liberty to act, not your liberty to think and decide. Being imprisoned (in general) makes the criminal think (and, maybe, regret) its actions and is a warning at the same time to others not to do the same. But once released, a former inmate can still commit a crime, if so it wishes (its ideas about good and evil have not been manipulated to actively purge "all evil" choices from its person). The person is still free to decide the meaning of its actions, without having "incapacitating disgust" at the sight of violence, music or a beautiful girl.
1970s was something else , Straw dogs , Dirty harry a.s.o lot of big name actors and directors in high budget (for the time) R rated movies . Not like today , they take two R rated movie monsters , Alien and Predator and make a PG movie from those .
"There has to be an air tank there" Nope. He almost drowned for real. Also the eye stuff scratched his cornea for real. Kubrick wasn't... the nicest man to actors.
From I recall from an interview, Kubrick also scammed McDowell's royalties off him as well. The film studio agreed to a 1% royalty deal, but Kubrick told McDowell that they had declined it, then had that directed to himself. Tortured and robbed.
Nearly every moment in this film is grotesque or painful in some way, but when taken as a whole in context, it makes for a brilliant piece of art. The way Alex constantly vacillates between characteristics of child and adult is particularly interesting to me -- that dichotomy and juxtaposition.
Yes, the fact he uses childish language. I don't know why people feel sorry for him later in the film. To my mind he has made his own bed and doesn't seem to have learned anything in the end.
@@Cheepchipsable Well, there's something to be said about his upbringing. His parents were never concerned about him as much as the appearance of a functioning family. They were never interested in him or what he does late at night: a mere "I'm working" was enough to dispel any doubts on their part. What kind of a parent does that? So while I'm not claiming he was a victim, it's undeniable the portrayal of his family as dysfunctional was a commentary on the liberal approach to raising a child, weather you agree with it or not. And it culminates with the parents finding a "better" child after he was outed as a criminal, and kicking him out.
@@B3RyL, a lot of parents now ignore the criminality their kids are doing, and they have the benefit of social media to see exactly what they are up to.
@@Tr0nzoid Bad parenting is not a new invention. Sure, things got complicated with the advent of social media, but at its core, the problem remains the same: kids are dumb. If you can't find a way to make them not dumb, they will be dumb for the rest of their lives. So the role of a parent is to make sure their child is not dumb by the ever-changing standards of society. That's all there is to it. Whatever methods you employ, just makes sure your kid is a functioning member of society they are going to grow up in
That's a very astute observation, given how the book ends. He is a child on the cusp of becoming a man in the book. The final chapter of the book, which has not been adapted for the film, we come back to Alex after he's become an adult, and is trying to run a new gang. But with adulthood comes maturity, and he becomes tired of violence and his mind starts wandering to starting a family. He shows signs that eventually he will become good of his own accord, not because of programming.
If you're a maniac who watches A Clockwork Orange enough times, you get to understanding Nadsat (or whatever language Alex and his Droogies use) perfectly fine.
Between the movie and the book at one point I was pretty fluent in it. Not so much these days but I still know how to properly use a "viddy" in a sentence and that's good enough for me.
Their slang has a lot of Russian in it. The milk they drink has different drugs in it to get them ready for a bit of ultra violence. Classic film. So many incredible shots and uses of color and light and different filters. Kubrick really goes all out in this movie.
@@Cheepchipsable most notably the milk had mescaline, LSD, and amphetamines analogs.. the amphetamines was Alex's favoutrite...Think energy drinks
Год назад
Why then did you fail to mention who actually came up with the language (nadsat), and with the moloko plus, and the ultra-violence? . . Anthony Burgess, that's who, in the hopefully unlikely case you didn't know, because he wrote the book this was based on.
George, that is one of the best analysis I've ever seen someone give of this movie, at least on just a first viewing, immediately after. I can't believe you edited this, Apocalypse and Once Upon A Time In Hollywood all in one week, that is CRAZY. What a week of cinema on Cinebinge! Those are three major movies to have gotten under your belt! THANK YOU!
Fun fact: David Prowse, the actor who played the body-building care-giver for the wheelchair-bound writer, was also the body actor in the Darth Vader suit in the Star Wars O.T.
He was screwed over by Star Wars producers because he had signed on the original film for a percentage of the profit. Apparently Star Wars never made a profit, and he got a letter every year telling him so.
I had the pleasure of meeting Malcom McDowell once. One of the nicest people I've ever met, which is funny since he's so great at playing villains, and while talking he slyly slipped in a "Viddy well." and I nearly died on the spot from a severe, nearly fatal, movie nerd attack. No joke I couldn't even talk after he said that. I was just like "He's quoting A Clockwork Orange at me! This is the coolest thing ever!"
In 1971 there were a lot of ex-military types working as prison guards, security guards etc, and they really did bring that OTT military way of doing things to their new job. It became a stereotype that was used by Monty Python et al, but the only reason the stereotype worked was because the audience recognised the type.
The best social satire is when the absurd still looks disturbingly familiar. Burgess nailed it in the novel; Kubrick (as usual) made it into a visually striking film.
Usually what satires are. You had to be around in that era to get the full impact. Like the prison guard was meant to be overly officious and represented the "old order" so to speak. He was meant to be ridiculous. Many women wearing vinyl clothes and coloured hair, etc.
Interesting bit of trivia - when the two former droogs, now cops, catch up with Alex, their numbers are 665 and 667. So when they're either side of Alex, that would make him...
The attack on the old writer and his wife was based on actual event that happened to Anthony Burgess, the book's author, and his wife. Also, I love your 'What the fuck is going on?!' reactions throughout.
We tend to underestimate old audiences and old directors. Everything in this movie that looks funny was supposed to be funny. There's nothing wrong in laughing at it, Kubrick intended it to be like that. That's even more true about his next film, Barry Lyndon, which many audiences today even fail to laugh because they associate period dramas with seriousness, although there's some fine humor in the portrayal of decadence in that film.
After this was released there were many copycat crimes in England, brutal ones, with some attackers actually singing "Singing in the Rain." Kubrick asked Warner Bros. to pull the film from all English theaters and, despite the loss in revenue, they obliged, because they valued Kubrick and wanted him to make his next film with them. Malcolm McDowell did indeed to through the ringer filming this, including suffering a broken rib and a scratched cornea.
One weird, yet brilliant movie. Love just about everything Kubrick did. Also love the really interesting language the writer used for his young people.
This is my favorite movie. What I like best about it is as it goes along, you start to realize that Alex's story is just a small part of an even bigger story going on in his country. Alex isn't a good person, but when you consider his environment, it becomes clear that he isn't an aberration to his society; he's a product of it.
I disagree. Probably because the book gives more insight into Alex's character but in the book he KNOWS what he's doing is morally wrong; he just doesn't care. Mr. Deltoid said it best. Alex has a good home, good parents, a good brain, but he chooses to do bad anyway. He's only interested in himself and the things he thinks is important, namely Beethoven. He absolutely LOSES it when he realizes that the 9th is being perverted by the films and his treatment, even calling it a sin, something he knowingly does day in and out, but he considers it in the same category as rape and violence.
Okay, but frankly, I think everything you've supported your disagreement with is completely wrong. For starters, we're not talking about the book, so let's throw that out right away. I think it's safe to accept that Alex lives in a harsh society because mostly everyone in this movie is a pretty lousy person. If Mr. Deltoid's creepy personality wasn't bad enough, he sexually assaults Alex and gets touchy with him while Alex is in his underwear. Sure, he says that Alex has good parents, but that doesn't make it true. At best, his parents are negligent by not providing him any structure and allowing him to stay home from school when he's obviously faking it, and at worst, they may have been abusive, specifically his mother. The movie never says so directly, but the scene where Alex accidentally kills the cat lady has a subtle allusion which suggests his mother might have abused him. When he delivers the death blow with the phallic statue, the film cuts to a painting of a woman with two sets of teeth. Earlier in the movie, Alex's mother is shown to wear dentures, so that could be a subconscious hint that this sort of inappropriate, nonconsensual interaction is familiar to Alex. Granted, that's an interpretation and could be wrong, but even if it is, it doesn't absolve his parents for being neglectful. Even when they visit him in the hospital, Alex's father admits that they'd done wrong by him by not providing him a loving home before he went to prison or after he got out. Look at this way. Alex is a teenager whose parents allow him to screw around all night and don't seem terribly invested or interested in what he actually gets up to. Since he's out in the streets every night, he goes to bar where the owner serves drug-laced milk to minors that gets them all messed up, beats people up, steals cars, destroys property and sexually assaults women. If he had a good healthy home life, he probably be out doing those things, but because he doesn't, he's doing what he needs to survive. After a certain amount of time, it's not surprising he acquired a taste for all these bad behaviors. The people who represent law and order aren't any better. The cops abuse him while he's in custody, the prison guards are fascists who goose-step like Nazis and are always acting aggressively toward the prisoners, and the government subjects him to classical conditioning through torturous means and call it "treatment." Had Alex not gone to prison, received the Ludovico technique and attempted to kill himself, he probably might have ended up working with the government sooner, only as a police officer where he'd be allowed to dispense violence legally. If Georgie and Dim could become police officers without having to change their ways, it stands to reason that Alex would have been the kind of guy they would have liked to keep dissenters in line. To make a long story short, I'm not saying that Alex bears no responsibility for his actions. What I am saying is that his behavior, bad as it is, doesn't really make him distinct from the society he lives in. As a street hooligan, his behavior is treated as degeneracy, but put a badge on his chest and a club in his hand, and suddenly his same behavior is treated as necessary for preserving law and order. I mean, come on. This is one of the most antifascist movies ever made, and you can't really make that point if you don't portray a fascist society.
@@Kensei007 I tend to disagree. The book emphasizes more Alex's free will, but the movie dials that down, and lets us wonder where our free will really comes from. Do we make the choices we make solely because of our own thinking, or were we (deeply?) influenced by people and culture around us? What shaped Alex's interests, for instance? Did he just choose Beethoven because, reasons? Was ultraviolence pre-programmed in his brain structure via DNA? Or looking around, at how people seem kinda awful all around him, could it be that he is a much more extreme, but somehow also quite fitting, member of his community?
This movie is absolutely genius. It starts with a near r-word happening on a stage, and you and the theater-audience are disgusted, rightly so. Then we spend the first half seeing what a monster Alex is, until we arrive at the brainwashing scene. Then we see him in a theater being disgusted by r-word on screen, officially the correct reaction, but we also feel an additional unique feeling of disgust about what the doctors are doing to him. Kubrick absolutely puts us and Alex through the wringer to get us to that realization. The overarching question throughout the movie is “what is worse, having free will but always doing bad things, or having no free will and doing what you are told is right?” and Kubrick leaves us feeling weird about our own answer, as the final scene almost feels like a sigh of relief.
I'll add that I much prefer the movie ending to the book's. The book adds an epilogue that shows Alex older, having a family and generally having turned to a honest life. In doing so it pretty much gives an answer to the question (Burgess was without a doubt making a case for free will, and I think specifically from a Christian viewpoint), and it kind of minimises the horrible stuff Alex did as an almost "boys will be boys" kind of thing, errors of youth that eventually he outgrew. Which would make sense maybe for a bit of brawling between gangs, not the awful crimes he indulged into. Meanwhile, the movie stays ambiguous because it's clear that Alex is unrepentant, so you're left wondering if it's right to feel relief that the principle is respected while in practice this means that the monster that is Alex is unleashed on the world once again (and worse, now he has powerful political backers that might cover up a little crime or two...).
@@HaganeNoGijutsushi I agree. There's a powerful philosophical point to be made here, which Burgess kind of avoided with his ending. There's something about good and evil, and what makes them different, that comes out of this movie and that should be more discussed. Not simply Alex being a monster, or the so-called good citizens being also able to do horrible things for revenge, or the whole project to change Alex and others like him being ultimately a little part of the game between UK political parties... It's how we can ever disentangle good from evil when they seem to be so inextricably mixed in people's personalities.
This movie has one of my all-time favorite lines from any movie. ‘No time for the old in-out love, just here to read the meter.’ My buddies and i, we all still say that to each other, usually as a greeting, especially if it’s been a long, long time since we’ve seen each other.
When I read the novel at school, there was an appendix at the back of the book to translate the Nadsat slang spoken; the novel is told from Alex's POV. After a while, you adjust to it and understand without having to look up the translation.
I was surprised Simone didn't recognize Malcom McDowell since he played Soran in Star Trek Generations. Also Alex's father was the same actor who played Delbert Grady in The Shining
Warren Clarke who played Dim had a long career in film and TV also. He was in Firefox with Clint Eastwood and Top Secret! and a log running UK series called Dalziel and Pascoe.
Brandon Likes Movies, James VS Cinema, Cinema Rules, TBR Schmitt, RolyPolyOllie Reactions, and about 10 other channels which I haven't watched yet, have reacted to this movie.
I love Kubrick. Probably my favorite director. This is one of his more important works, and its effect on cinema cannot be underestimated. I hope we'll see more Kubrick on this channel.
In the original release of the novel this movie is based on, there is a final chapter in which Alex actually does reform and turn his life around - by his own choice and free will. However the US release of novel, which is the version Kubrick read and used for the film, that chapter was omitted so the story ended with Alex going right back to his original violent and debaucherous ways.
The "milk" isn't the point, it's the "vellocet" (speed), "Synthemesc" (synthetic mescaline), or "Drencrum" (something like valium) that is mixed in the milk. The idea is that milk, as an emulsion, works to deliver both water soluble and fat soluble drugs.
@B Sell The book came out in 1962, while Adrenochrome was only invented by Hunter S. Thompson in 1972. Thompson might have borrowed the name from Clockwork Orange, or the reference to Drencrom might not be in the original novel, but in my hazy memory, the three milk-drug coctails were lifted directly from the book.
@B Sell My bad--- adrenochrome is a real substance, a dissociative discovered in the 1950s. The Hunter S. Thompson version is the one that stars in modern conspiracy lunacy.
Alex is one of the main inspirations Heath Ledger used for his performance as The Joker. Also, the opening sequence where they show Alex at the club, he toasts the camera before he takes a drink. Reportedly he was asked by Stanley what the toast was for and Malcolm explained he was telling the audience they were in for a really wild ride!
Also, the iconic main theme of this movie is actually a rewritten classical piece (Hey, it's Kubrick!) that is well known as the Death March of Queen Mary of the Scots, I believe. It was redone for the movie in synthesizer format by Wendy Carlos.
Fun Fact: the bodyguard towards the end of the movie is played by David Prowse, who also played Darth Vader (he was the one who wore the suit in the film itself).
This one really opened my eyes as a lad - my Dad took me to this movie at the Drive In ( yes it was that long ago it was a few weeks past the premier) i don't think i was the same again- as a little droogie i was taught much that day....
The movie can be summed up by what the priest tells Alex before the Ludovico technique: "when a man cannot choose, he ceases to be man". Like the title implies, you cannot mechanically engineer something natural without perverting it.
Me and a group of friends were standing in line for tickets to "Jaws" on a summer evening in 1975. We decided to stop waiting because one of us did not want to see that film. We left to find something else and settled on a drive-in theater that was showing "A Clockwork Orange". At this drive-in you could get out of the car and set on the ground and drink beer or whatever. We were young (and drinking), and everyone thought "what the hell was this?" Fun Times! Since that night it has become one my favorite films, especially since the eighties and home video. I really do not care to watch the "ultra-violence" but the film aesthetics and cinematography are mesmerizing. I read that Malcolm McDowell did have an eye injury from this. My favorite line is, "I'll teach you to break-in to real peoples houses" from the cat lady.
Burgess' wife was assaulted so some details were slightly autobiographical, and Burgess said he basically was drunk to get through writing that section. Also there was an arc of redemption for an adult Alex at the end of the book Kubrick left out that Burgess resented being omitted.
Well, it would be more accurate to say, U.S. publishers left the final chapter of the book out, and it was that edition that was used to write the screenplay...but yeah, Burgess was quite miffed, not only because it held the proper conclusion of the tale, but it was also Chapter 21, a number he felt was symbolic of adulthood, and showed that this was utimately a coming-of-age story of Alex.
The big guy helping the old man in the wheel chair is Dave Prowse. In the UK he was the Green Cross Code Man (taught children road safety) but you would know him as Darth Vader. He was the body for Vader for the original trilogy, with James Earl Jones being the voice.
And a young James Earl Jones also appeared in Dr Strangelove, another Kubrick classic. So both actors who portrayed Darth Vader appeared young in Stanley Kubrick films.
The best part is he read the lines himself on set but because he has such a strong Bristol accent it sounds hilarious. There are behind the scenes clips if you look for them.
The original book has quite a number of changes but the ending felt a lot better. After he is "cured" in the hospital Alex goes back to his old ways with a new group of friends by being a horrible criminal. Soon after though, he finds that it's not that satisfying as it used to be. He runs into Pete (the quiet, young looking one of the original gang), and see's he is a normal and good member of society and that makes Alex want that life too. Unfortunately though, it leaves him wondering that if he starts a family would his cruel and selfish tendencies be passed down onto him.
@@ShadowSonic2 That's fair, he doesn't really get any comeuppance either ending. I just always felt like the movie had this lesson for Alex then just said nah forget it let's just reward him completely.
I remember back in high school my debate teacher was talking about conditioning and he brought up this movie, having never seen it my friend and I went and rented it after school was done for the day and watched it. Pretty insane stuff, I love it and it's a shame that a lot of the message is lost on people. When I told my teacher in class the next day I had seen it he was impressed and gave us extra credit, lol.
Since no one else is addressing it because they are talking about David Prowse 1) Alex isn't 14 years old. 14 years was his prison sentence. His age is never said although he's suppose to be 17-18. In the book he's 15. Malcolm McDowell was 27 at the time. 2) The guy that meets Alex in his parent's bedroom and when he gets arrested isn't his lawyer, it's is probation officer. 3) The milk in the Korova Milk Bar wasn't just milk. It has drugs in it. That's why it's called "milk-plus". That's why it "sharpens you up" and gets you ready for "ultra-violence". 4) The old man at the "home" only knew Alex was from the experiment, he didn't know Alex was the one that attacked him and his wife until Alex sang Singing in the Rain in the bathtub. 5) The slang they're using is called "Nadsat". It's a combination of Cockney Rhyming Slang and Russian. The book's author didn't want to use real slang since it would become dated.
Don't get that confused with Devotchka, which means 'little girl' or just abouts. Their slang is a strange russian/english hybrid. Edit. Nvm it IS Spotchka, but I've had a hell of a time looking up what that could be
At the end of the original novel, there was a short chapter about Alex growing up and becoming more responsible (he basically puts all his r+pe and violence down to 'kid stuff!'). It was removed from the American version because the publishers there thought it was cooler to end with 'I was cured all right!" and apparently, Kubrick agreed.
I read the book over 30 years ago and in the original ending, Alex was actually reformed or was on his way of becoming reformed, if I remember correctly.
Yeah, the story pretty much follows Alex in the movie, but Kubrick left out the final chapter (chapter 21) in which the re-violent Alex comes to his own reform and grows up. ... Kind of the main point of the book and just another example of Kubrick doing an adaptation of a book he has little respect for. Great film maker, but if I was a writer I wouldn't let him near my book at any price.
@@Hapsard The original (at least in the U.S.) publication of the book also does not include the 21st chapter. The version I read in school didn't have it and our teacher had to give us the 21st chapter as a separate epilog.
@@xbeaker do you or anyone else here have any idea why they did that? I know Capitol Records changed the song lists on American releases of Beatles albums (which must have ruffled feathers) but removing the ending of a novel seems amazingly odd ...
Ahh yes, A Clockwork Orange. I remember my friend and I picking it at Blockbuster not knowing what it was, and watching it with his mom. It was a glorious and mortifying evening.
Out of all the reactions I've seen to this movie, you two are the only ones that hit the nail. Most of the RU-vidrs that I have seen were simply disgusted by the disturbing scenes, but they do not go further in terms of the plot and the questions that this production raises. Ultra-violence is not really the central theme of the film, but rather it is a vehicle to introduce deeper philosophical themes such as free will and human nature. Kubrick stated that his films were not intended to lecture the audience politically or morally. Therefore, his endings were always open to interpretation. In addition, you guys have been able to appreciate Kubrick's artistic choices. He is the best filmmaker of all time for a reason.
They have their own language. Droog is their word for friend. The book comes with a glossary so you can understand what the hell they are talking about.
Their milkbar hangout is actually milk laced with mescaline. Malcolm went through a lot for this film and was considered to be an up and coming star in British cinema. He got decent work over the next few years and critics often praised his eccentric acting. Then he made the poor choice to star in Caligula.... produced by Bob Guccione, the pornographer. The film had a renowned cast and a big budget and on the surface was suppose to be a gritty depiction of Rome during Caligula Caesar's reign, but Bob felt the finished product wasn't erotic enough and shoehorned in a few gratuitous explicit sex scenes, using porn actors engaging in unsimulated sex. This was largely unbeknownst to the cast until after its release. To this day Malcolm blames that film for permanently derailing his career.
Just to clarify for you this is based on an old science fiction novel by Anthony Burgess. The sets and language are so weird because this is a classic example of the trope called 20 minutes into the future. Basically its set in the (recent) future, but its grounded enough so that you can still relate to the the characters and how they interact with society and technology at large. Ironically the sets probably looked less outlandish in the sixties than they do today. The language is based on a lot of Russian and Soviet words because Burgess was assuming Soviet culture would creep westwards. The story at large deals with themes of individual freedom versus societal safety, and weather free will is a requirement for morality. Basically if you cant choose to be evil are you really being good. Kubric took an ok book and dialed it up to eleven basically.
There's a great video about where the locations from the film are like now. The broken elevator room was part of a university campus and the record store is now a McDonalds.
I remember my psychology teacher senior year in the 80s actually showed us this film. The class freaked out but a friend and I had already seen it several times so we more watched the class.
The film is based off the US version of the novel which is actually a chapter shorter than the UK version. Also, the bodyguard guy is David Prowse who went on to appear in some sci-fi film from the 70’s that no one remembers ;)
The early 1950s version of '1984', however, has two versions, one shown in the US, one everywhere else. It's worth finding and comparing, then deducing who paid to have the film made and why.
Singing in the Rain has a very different vibe after watching this movie…! And the composer Wendy Carlos’ electronic re-rendering of classical music is marvellous.
.. Hi greedings from Germany. There, s a song about this Film.. :"Die toten Hosen-hier kommt Alex" (covered lauter in English by UK Subs).. *was a succesful Song here, in the 90,s
Kudos to George for the Herculean effort of editing this reaction and blurring out all the fun bits! Such specific blurring on the important work of art in particular 😁 And kudos to the both of you for taking this movie on in the first place! It’s a challenging watch in pretty much every way, but even though you were going in completely cold, you really caught the vibe and provided very intelligent analyses. This movie is an object lesson in how to make an audience feel sympathy with a fundamentally unlikeable character! It does pull back a little bit from showing some of the extremes of Alex’s actions, as they were in the book, to help with this, but otherwise the film is a very faithful adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ source novel, complete with the Nadsat teen slang (based on Russian). There’s one big difference, though. The novel had a final chapter in which we meet Alex a few years down the line. He’s been carrying on in his old manner, but has a growing realisation that there is more to life, and eventually chooses to grow up and take responsibility for his own life and actions. The American edition of the book had this chapter cut out, and it was this version that Kubrick read and based his novel on. Anthony Burgess was very upset that this denouement was missing from the film, as it summed up everything he was trying to say - that we all have free will in choosing how to behave, and that moral choices can only come from within. If good behaviour is coerced, then it is no longer good. By taking away Alex’s agency, they rendered him less than human (the clockwork orange of the title), but in the end he regains it. Kubrick seems to have thought that the satire would bite more deeply without that finale though, and he’s probably right. I feel sad for Burgess though, who felt he had to defend the movie because it was so close to his book, while also fundamentally disagreeing with how it ended. Oh, and a word on the prison warden. Back then, the majority of prison officers were former/retired army veterans, and so had a very stylised form of speaking. This character is a bit of an exaggeration, but as with Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket, it’s very much based on reality. If you ever watch the classic British sitcom “Porridge,” you’ll see another example of this with Mr Mackay, the chief warden. This kind of semi-ridiculous authority figure is a staple of British comedy and drama!
*FYI....The tall body builder in the house who picks up Malcom McDowell and brings him into the house. That's DAVE PROWES. Also known as DARTH VADER. He was my gym instructor back in 1998. When I lived in Borough, London.* Pink shirt at the table at 27:48
My favorite part of this movie is the patchwork language Alex uses throughout: an idiosyncratic mix of English, Russian, and Cockney slang. A friend of mine in high school looked up the dictionary online after watching the movie and taught himself to speak it fluently. But I can read and write Atlantean, so I’ve got him licked. And you’re right, it’s an insane film! If you want a happy palate cleanser of a film after this one, I recommend Nightcrawler.
"It's both like futuristic and not" I believe the word you're looking for is "retrofuturism". It's basically a reimagining of what the future COULD have looked like if it diverged from our timeline at a specific point in the past, and sort of stayed that way or developed in a way that conformed to the sensibilities of the time. It has more of a presence in games, like the Fallout series, Iron Harvest, Cyberpunk 2077, Dishonored, and so on, but look closely enough and you'll spot it in many movies too, like the Blade Runner, Alien franchise, and Dune, and yes, Clockwork Orange is a prime example too.
Glad you liked it! It's a really rough ride at times but the really weird-ass humor and unhinged performances make it easier to digest. It's kind of odd one, personally, since I first heard about the film when I was something like 10 years old, and a pair of twins in my class said that their older brother had told them that they can watch any movies but not this until they were actually 18 years old [the highest age rating in Finland back then and even now]. So guess which movie took on a mythical status... I saw it a few years later when everything violent was cool, and Singing in the Rain and Stuck in the Middle with You became edgy favorite songs, but only later started to understand what it was about. Looking forward to more of your Kubrick reactions! My personal favorite is Barry Lyndon, but it's not very popular so I'm not sure how wise a choice it is for your channel's growth.
Barry Lyndon is amazing, and although the Shining is my personal favorite film, I think Barry Lyndon is the most technically perfect of all Kubrick’s movies. It’s very unpopular with reactors though, probably due to the slow pace. I hope they watch it at some point!
@10:30 ''what is this place, is it a real place?'' That scene was filmed in Kensington market. It was a really cool indoor market, sadly it's closed down.
"There's no one else in this" - George... you realise the bodyguard is Dave Prowse - Darth Vader ! Fashion was this random and colourful. This is what happens when people that lived through the sixties start designing stuff to wear andfurnish your home. My mum's 70s wallpaper was concentric orange diamonds and bright green sofas.
